The Tax Guardian

YouTube Video, Why Sen. Mitch McConnell is wrong. He said.....
(part 1of 7):www.youtube.com/watch

Public Enlightment Message #2, Bill Gates rejects book from The Tax
Guardian:www.youtube.com/watch

Public Enlightment Message #3, Eli Broad rejects book from The Tax
Guardian:www.youtube.com/watch

Public Enlightment Message #4, Howard Schultz rejects book from The
Tax Guardian:www.youtube.com/watch

Public Enlightment Message #5 (Part 1 of 2), The lightning struck tower
from the Sun and the falling king symblizes Howard Schultz, CEO of
Starbucks:www.youtube.com/watch

Posted: 3/12/12        The Norquist Pledge is unconstitutional and has done more harm to America--than El-Qaeda.
       In 1985, Grover Norquist founded the group--Americas for Tax Reform—he says: by the request of Ronald Reagan; if, there is proof of that; than Reagan was suffering from dementia—or is a plutonomist.
        The name Americans for Tax Reform is a misnomer; because, it is mostly funded, I believe, by wealthy Americans who don’t want to pay their pay share of taxes: not the majority of people. It is a secret organization; like El-Qaeda: conducting its meetings without press. It main purpose: to get members of Congress to sign the pledge—to renounce their constitutional power.
        Norquist said on Meet the Press: congressmen that break it—have broken their pledge to Americans: that is not wholly true, according to a Gallop Poll: 66% of Americans support higher taxes on the rich.
        It is unconstitutional—because it violates the Oath of Office—members of congress when they enter: they pledge to support and defend the Constitution—and well and faithfully discharge the duties of office. Duties of members of Congress: raise and lower taxes. The Norquist pledge prevents them from doing that.
      Those that sign the pledge:
           1.   refuse to pay for the cost of Wars.
           2. refuse to reimburse the Society Security Trust Fund looted of $2.7 trillion to pay for the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
          3. refuse to pay off the National Debt.
           4.   refuse to pay for Medicare part D.
           5.   refuse to pay for new programs enacted by Congress
           6.   refuse to pay for government FY expenditures that have been authorized by the majority members of Congress—or included in Federal Budgets.
           The failure to raise taxes, when they are historically at a low level, to pay these legal debts, constitutes: malfeasance, irrational behavior, and is anti-American.
           The Constitution gives congressmen the power to raise and lower taxes, you cannot tie one hand behind their back, so, that lawmakers cannot discharge the duties of office.
          That is like—you are chosen as a juror to a murder trial; but—your employer says: before you hear the evidence at the trial: you must make up your mind: the defendant—is innocent. That is what the Norquist pledge does. Elected members of Congress—must enter the Congress with an open mind—so they can hear the evidence and use their conscience to make judgments based on the facts. You cannot do that if, you signed the pledge: your mind is already decided. And if, you changed your mind: subject to retribution.
            Norquist says, Republicans who vote to raise taxes [exercise their constitutional power] are “rat heads in a bottle of Coke” The bottle of Coke, represents the Republican Party. If you were a republican and proposed higher taxes on the wealthy—you would be ex-communicated.
          The Norquist no-tax-increase pledge has become embedded in the Republican Party and Congress and has paralyzed it. The Norquist organization was founded in 1985—to protect the Reagan tax cuts. He cut the top rate from 70% to 50% to 28%. Times have changed since then.
          It is like an extraneous virus infecting 236 members of the House and 41 Senators, mostly all Republicans, preventing them from acting sanely. The fact that 98 percent of House Republicans have signed the pledge—is clear proof, it represents the top 1 percent.
          Back in 1918—the income tax had 56 marginal tax rates from 6% to 77%--by 1945: 16 marginal tax rates: 0% to 70%: Reagan lowered them to two: 15% and 28%.
          There was a spike in the deficits after the Reagan tax cuts and President George H.W. Bush—added the 31% tax rate. That did not do it, so President Bill Clinton added the 36% and 39.6%. That slowed the US Debt buildup—not stop. Then, George W. Bush was elected and he reduced the top four income tax rates, reduced and repealed the Estate Tax [2010]—and reduced the capital gains and dividend tax to 15% and the National Debt skyrocketed.
           And, there is where Norquist—wants to keep them. The Norquist pledge—prevents lawmakers form restoring the higher income tax rates eliminated by Reagan and Bush--for any reason, no matter—how justified. That is wrong.
            You must enter the Congress with both powers at your disposal; so, that if necessary, you can raise taxes—to pay for wars, to pay off the Social Security IOUs, to pay for government expenditures to keep the nation for going bankrupt, etc. The Norquist pledge—prevents congressmen—from doing that. They want to pay US debts—one way: Starve the Beast.
          And to threaten congressmen, if, they don’t. That means: Americans for Tax Reform, has become a terrorist organization. It will attack you for breach of pledge. Congressmen must enter Congress with an open mind—but disciples of Norquist, the Devil, are impervious to debate, reason, and the facts: that is not how the Congress should operate. If, Congress can freely lower taxes—it should be able to freely raise them. Both powers are necessary—to govern the Nation.
            One reason: the US Debt has been rising, dramatically, since 1985: Grover Norquist.
            If, Congress cannot get rid of this fiscal terrorist, the Supreme Court should step in—and declare the no-tax increase pledge—for any reason: Unconstitutional.

       His reply to Warren Buffett is proof, most Republicans are bad men: they have hostility towards   —anybody that proposes higher taxes on the rich.
       Warren Buffett said, wealthy Americans--like himself— should be taxed at a higher rate than the current tax code demands and he offered to match any and all congressman who would write a check to pay down the US Debt. None took up his offer. They are disloyal anti-tax Americans. Buffett is right and should be lauded for his bravery and honesty—not attacked.
         Chris Christie said, “Warren Buffett   “should just write a check and Shut up!
         I think Chris Christie—should shut up!
        He recently, endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nominee for US president—who wants to make a across the board tax cut--including the wealthy—his scheme to get elected. That is horrible idea.
        On Face the Nation (2/26/12), Christie said, “One, I think he’s got integrity.” I disagree—unless he has turned over a new leaf-- after enriching himself, looting corporations, over billing Medicare, denied his involvement, which is a lie, misrepresented a Bain issued IPO perspective, had a Swiss Bank account, and is a prolific tax dodger. He would not crack down on tax havens, since, the equity fund he founded, Bain Capital uses them. His 2010 and 2011 tax returns—reveals he set a $100 million trust fund for his sons—that evades the gift tax, the estate tax—and apparently, his income tax. If, he ever appears on Face the Nation—Bob Schieffer—should ask him to explain that. I never heard of that one before. I think we could learn a lot by a study of all of his tax returns since 1984. He should reveal them. There has been 20 GOP debates—not once--has the question been asked: Does he now—favor taxing “carried interest” as income, rather than capital gains. That shows they are rigged. Capital gains, dividends, and "carried interest" are his main sources of income--which are taxed at 15%--far below what they should be.
          Mitt Romney’s criticisms of President Obama are foul balls.
          He said in 2008—“Let Detroit go Bankrupt.”
          He supported TARP—the bailout of Wall Street, for which he is heavily invested in Golden Sack equity and hedge funds. He should be ashamed of himself.
           As Governor of Massachusetts: he cut the top income tax rate and raised 88 fees.
           David Cay Johnson says, “Romney’s [tax] plan is George W. Bush’s plan on steroids.”
           It strongly cuts taxes on the richest Americans and raises taxes on the bottom 20%.
           He supported John Boehner’s opposition to raising taxes on the rich—to cut the deficit. He is taxpayers #1 enemy in the House. He blocked all of Obama’s tax proposals.
           According to the Tax Policy Center, Romney’s plan would add $900 billion to the deficit in 2015, when the changes would go into effect.
           These are good reasons for not endorsing him.
          Christie also misstated Romney’s tax plan, he said, he would make it [the tax code] “fairer, simpler for people.” He left out Flatter: that is not fairer. Christie, the governor of NJ, is an idiot.
         Anybody in their right mind—knows taxes must go UP!

Posted 2/13/12                     Eight Reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney

      #I.   Mitt Romney, as head of Bain Capital, profited from companies that went bankrupt, shareholders lost money, and employees were laid off or fired. Rick Perry called it ”Vulture Capitalism”, Newt Gingrich says, he should give back the money earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees. Here is a partial list:
                 1. Dade International—a Bain buyout in 1994: sales doubled, debt quadrupled, wages were cut, a plant in Puerto Rica was closed; nearly 300 were laid off, one worker tried to commit suicide, a plant in Miami was closed: one worker said, “There was absolutely no concern for employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused.” A total of 1,700 lost their jobs—Dade eventually filed for bankruptcy: Bain realized $342 million from a $30 million investment [including $100 million in management fees].
                2. Kay and Bee Toys-- a Bain buyout in 2,000. Borrowed on its assets to repurchase Bain stock and pay investors an $85 million dividend: the 80 year old company could not sustain the debt: by 2004, 365 stores closed: it filed for bankruptcies: 3,400 workers were laid off: Bain partners made a 320% return on a $18 million investment. Although, Romney retired in 1999—he continued to get a share of Bain’s investment profits and it is clear to me: these were a continuation of Romney’s investment policies.
               3.   DDi was acquired by Bain Capital in 1996, fired hundreds of employees, and merged it with another Bain company, then, took it public at $16 a share in 2000; analyst at Lehman Bros, claims Bain used pressure to secure a favorable highest 1 buy rating with a target price of $36. Soon after, Bain sold its shares—yielding $157 million--also Romney sold his personal shares in May 2001 at $22.90 a share--yielding $4.1 million. In 2001 and 2002 sales dropped and work force was cut 40%: it defaulted on debt in 2002 and filed for bankruptcy in 2003. At the time, two of six board members were from Bain. The stock plummeted to 10 cents a share: 2,100 jobs lost: Bain invested $40.6 million and gained $116.7 million. In 2003, Bain paid $4 million to settle a class-action suit—alleging: its IPO prospective deceived investors: Lehman Brothers paid $90 million.
               4. GS Industries was taken over by Bain and two partners in 1993. Tom Conway, a United Steelworkers International Vice President, said: company managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately afterwards. A retired Georgetown steel worker said, Bain Capital ‘treated us like dirt.” Bain and partners received millions of dollars in management fees and dividends after acquisition. Romney was in charge most of the time: cut jobs and wages and shuttered a 100 year old division. James Sanderson, an employee since 1974, said, “They were investors. They weren’t mill operators.” As a result of loading the company with debt and the fall of steel prices GSI filed for bankruptcies in 2001: hundreds of more workers lost their jobs. Another steel worker said, “top managers continued to receive bonuses from Bain—even as bankruptcies neared.” Bain doubled its investment of $24.5 million. It is one thing—to lose on an investment: it is another: to profit—from a company you take over, cut jobs and wages, end profit sharing, and goes bust.
              5. American Pad and Paper---Bain bought for $5.1 million in 1992: it fired everybody, rehired some, slashed pay, and reduced work force. Bain charged Ampad $2 million a year in fees: $5 million in 1995. It merged it with other companies: by 1999, Ampad debt reached $400 million from $11 million in 1993—sales also increased—but debt more. Bain was paid another $2 million for arranging a public offering: it made another $40 to $50 million from selling it shares. By the late 1990—it was facing stiff competition from super stores like Bain- funded Staples: sales slid. In 2000, creditors forced Ampad into bankruptcies: they were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar: the Ampad shares become worthless: hundreds lost their jobs. In all, Bain make $102.1 million from the deal.
               6. Stage Stores—Bain acquired for $9.2 million in 1988. It went public in 1996. Bain realized $100 million. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
               7. Details Inc. was purchased for $4.6 million in 1997. Went public in 1998--Bain made $93 million on sale of stock. By 2003—it was bankrupt.
               8. Bain bought Holson Burnes Group for $10 million, more than double its money between 1986 and 1992, when it went out of business, 150 people lost their jobs.
          Romney claims to be a job-creator; that is like, the Norwegian Anders Behring wanting a medal for his shooting rampage. Mitt’s goal as a private equity fund manager was profit—not jobs.
       #II.    Back in the 1989, Bain Capital purchased a controlling interest in Damon Clinical Laboratories, just as the Feds were completing an investigation for Medicare fraud, Romney sold the company: netting Bain $12 million—Romney $437,000. The investigation revealed Romney sat on the broad—while Damon submitted millions of dollars in fraudulent claim. The Damon Corp. pleaded guilty, went bankrupt, and thousands lost their jobs. Initially, Romney denied knowledge--that was false.
          #III.   “Carried Interest” is one of the most egregious loophole in the tax code; that is, taxing the commission of equity and hedge funds managers—for partners capital gains --as his capital gains—rather—than, what it is-- his commission, which should be taxed as income, like wages [or labor]. Back in 2007, TechCrunch asked Romney, whether carried interest should be taxed as capital gains or income, he said, “With regards to carried interest associated with venture capital, real estate, private equity, I do not believe in raising taxes.” The answer is No. He is a greedy plutocrat and does not know the meaning of fairness. Most equity managers charge a 20% fee: Romney 30%: that is proof--he is greedy. It is not because he is smarter: it is because he is more ruthless.
         In 2007, the House passed legislation to change the taxation from capital gains to income: Bain spend $300,000 between August of 2007 and April of 2008 --lobbying Congress to kill the bill. It never passed the Senate. Since 2007, the US government has lost an estimated $10 billion in revenues-- because of the carried interest loophole: that allows equity and hedge fund managers, to pay 15% on their compensation [fee]-- sometimes in the billions of dollars—rather than 35%.
        #IV. Millionaire Mitt Romney does not use his wealth to create jobs: he has invested his money in 31 Golden Sachs investment funds. These Equity and Hedge Funds principle goal is to create profit for investors—not jobs. They are blind trusts--do the dirty work for him—skim profits, dividends, interest, and capital gains from the real economy. Some engage in leverage buyouts, strip and flip. Some make their money from stock price changes, selling short and long, engage in high-frequency trading by programmed computers, speculate in options, futures, arbitrage, etc., And, they get a tax-break on gains—whereas, private businesses and corporations that produced tangible goods and services, their profits are taxed at a higher rate. Unlike corporations—their door is closed: can’t look in.
            Josh Kosman, author of The Buyout of America: How Private Equity is Destroying and Killing the American Economy, says: “Most private equity firms are because once you look behind the numbers there is much they don’t want you to see.” That is where Mitt Romney made his fortune—not creating jobs; although, sometimes that is a by-product.
          #V.   In a 2008, GOP debate, Mitt Money said, he supported the Bush tax cuts: on income, dividends, and capital gains; but, even wants to lower these taxes more-- to get your vote: that is a mistake—and will, eventually, bankrupt the Nation.
         #VI. Mitt Romney was endorsed by billionaire, Donald, Trump, not, because, like he says: “he is tough, he is smart, he is sharp, and will not let bad things happen to this country”: he already has: Look at DDi, Dade International, Ampad, Kay Bee Toys, GS Industries, etc, corporations taken over by Bain Capital and looted. Trump’s endorsement is a good sign—you should do the opposite—unless you’re in the top 1 percent. The real reason Trump likes Romney—he is the likely the Republican nominee for President and committed to block tax increases on the wealthy. Here are some of the bad things he would do—if elected:
                    1. Repeal the estate tax [that is a bad thing—save Trump taxes].
                   2. Repeal Dodd-Frank [that is a bad thing for main street].
                    3. Repeal Obamacare [that is a bad thing for the 32 million uninsured—not much different than Romney care].
                    4. He would extend the Bush tax cuts [that is a bad thing].
        #VII. Since, the bulk of Romney’s income comes from carried interest, Wall Street investments, and the money to run his political campaign: he is not going to crack down on tax loopholes, tax havens, excessive compensation, fraud, etc.           Patrick Gaspard, the Democrat’s National Committee Executive Director, said, “He [Romney] used every loophole in the book available to the wealthy and corporations to avoid paying his fair share.” That is true—but, the bad thing: he defends these tax loopholes and his company, Bain Capital, lobbied against changing them.
         Here is a big one—revealed by David Cay Johnson: Romney paid no gift tax on the $100 million trust fund set up for his sons. If, I understand this correctly—Romney can transfer his right to carried interest to a trust fund—the amount it generates in the trust --avoids the gift and estate tax. That does not make sense to me—and should be investigated.
        First of all, Romney’s compensation as a equity fund manager should be taxed as income—not as capital gains, since, it not his money that is invested—but, his partners and contributions to a trust fund—should be subject to the gift-estate tax, which in this case by-passes both. Why, this has not caused a firestorm is mind boggling. This is a giant loophole.
          #VIII. In a GOP debate--the moderator asked the Republican candidates running for the US Presidency: if, you would not support a tax increase of $1 for $10 in spending cuts—raise hour hand: Romney did.
          Despite his income of $21.9 million in 2010—and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes: he would not pay $1 more: he is an unashamed greedy plutocrat and should be sent to a Labor Camp for 4 years—not the White House. George Romney, his father, paid an effective rate of 37%, back in 1967, when the top rate was 70% over $200,000. Then, the US gross debt was $340.4 billion—42% of GDP—today: the US National Debt is $15.3 trilllion—102% of GDP: that is clear proof: taxes must be raised—not lowered. Mitt Romney is a Mormon [moron]—and should ask his Savior—Jesus Christ—for forgiveness of his sinful nature.
          Mitt Romney has two sides:
                          1. The private—tax dodging—money grabing--venture capitalist.
                          2. The public benevolent candidate running for highest office.
                          His scheme to get elected: cut taxes more; particularly, on the rich.
                          Don’t be fooled: vote for the candidate who will raise taxes…

Here are the reasons why:
         He signed the Norquist no-tax increase pledge back in 1998. Since then, the National Debt has increased from $5.5 trillion to $15.2 trillion: debt to GDP has increased from 64% to 101%-- any sane and fair minded man would renounce that pledge based on today’s—soaring National Debt.
       Gingrich’s zero/lower taxes to expand the economy is a flawed plan!
       He takes credit for helping to balance the budget for four [three] years under President Clinton, that is a stretch: the first balanced budget was in 1998 and he resigned from the House, effective Jan. 3, 1999 -- but, he voted against the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993—unofficially called: the Debt Reduction Act, which added the 36% and 39.6% income tax brackets. Taking credit for four years of balanced budgets and voting against the tax increases is a contradiction. He distorts the facts. Not a single Republican voted for the bill and he led the opposition. Here is what he said on the House floor [8/5/93]: …”I would hope that this tax increase bill would pass by one or two votes so that every Democrat who voted yes would bear the responsibility for a massive tax increase and the job-killing recession it will lead to.”
        Obviously, that was wrong: an economic boom followed and four years of budget surpluses: 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001—and 22.4 million jobs were created in eight years.
       Here is his tax plan:
        Stop the tax increases in 2013. That is when the Bush tax cuts expire. That is what he would like to do—if, president. Of course, voters should make sure that never happens.
        He also wants to eliminate the estate [or inheritance] tax— he calls it: double taxation. It is not. For example, the unrealized capital gains in Mitt Romney’s estate valued at $190 to $250 million would pass tax free to heirs, the taxes Romney pays annually—does not pay for the government expenses of the next generation –or his heirs; plus, he owes back taxes--his share of the National Debt created in his life time from under taxation on income, dividends and capital gains: the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. His income of $42.6 million for 2010-11, rightfully, should be taxed at progressive rates from 10% to 70%: not 15%.
         Gingrich also wants to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains tax— that means: Mitt Romney, instead paying 15% on his multi-million dollar income—would pay close to zero tax. Gingrich is not in his right mind. He says, we should eliminate the capital gains tax; because, China has none. Well—I got bad news: the capital gains tax in China is 20% [2012].
        He backed Reaganomics—but, Reagan said, the tax on income and capital gains should be the same: it was 15, 28, and 33 percent in 1988 under his tax plan. Taxing wages and not investment income is not fair: Newt’s Plan
         Gingrich voted for the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997—that cut the capital gains rate to 20%--if held for 18 months. Note: 99.6% of Republicans voted for this bill and zero for the 1993 Debt Reduction Bill.
         In 2003, George Bush lowered the tax on capital gains to 15%--held longer than 1 year. Note: 99.6% of Republicans voted for this bill.
        These votes: clearly prove Republicans represent the wealthy.
         Now, Gingrich wants to reduce taxes on investment income: capital gains, dividends, and interest—to zero. He is a bigger tax cutter on the wealthy, than Reagan and Bush.
         Russia also wants to eliminate the capital gains tax. Pre-revolutionary Egypt had no capital gains tax. The trend towards eliminating the estate [or inheritance], capital gains and dividend taxes is proof—the super-rich are taking control of the governments of the world. Once, a plutocracy forms; like in Syria, it is hard to get rid of.
         This can be seen also by the fact: the income tax stops being progressive at the middle class in most countries of the world. Plutocrats hate progressive taxation on investment gains and income. They are greedy elitists. They use their wealth to gain control of the Congress; then, cut their taxes: more and more.
         Gingrich’s plan to eliminate the tax on estates [or inheritances], capital gains, interest, and dividends—guarantees the establishment of a US plutocracy—rule of the rich.
         Gingrich also wants to pattern our income tax on the Kong Hong model: a tax-haven for the rich. It does not have the expenses of a large territory, population, and military.
         Here is how it would work: you could elect to pay income tax under the present tax code—or elect to pay a 15% flat tax. Based on the IRS data for 2009, those having $0 taxable income to $200,000 -- that paid an average tax of 0% to 12%-- would choose to pay income tax under the current tax code; however, those that have taxable income from $200,000 to over $10 million—that paid an average tax of 19% to 26%-- would choose to pay the 15% flat tax. That would be a tax saving for Gingrich--of about $536,000.
         This would be a disaster of first order:
         Mr. Skaggs [D-Col.] said, Gingrich’s Manifesto for American [Sept, 30, 1994]:
        “This is an incredible proposal to redistribute wealth up.” That is exactly what Gingrich’s tax plan is today: repeal the estate [inheritance] tax, eliminate tax on capital gains and dividends, two main sources of income of the rich, and a 15% flat income tax [for the rich]. That would create huge deficits—worst than Reagan and Bush. The Obama deficits are the consequences of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, mostly on the wealthy, and their economic and military war polices. Republicans like big military to protect their wealth, but, don’t like paying for it.
         They siphoned money from the Social Security Trust Funds and borrowed to pay for it. Now, they want to pay off this debt—by cutting domestic programs: education, healthcare, and welfare.
         The Republicans support of the Reagan tax cuts, their opposition of the Clinton tax increases, their support for the Bush tax cuts, and their opposition of every tax increase on the wealthy during the Obama administration—is equivalent to the House of Lords that blocked the “People’s Budget” introduced in the House of Commons, that proposed a land tax on wealthy landowners to elimination poverty in England, in 1906 - 1914. Rich Republicans in Congress are equivalent to the Dukes, Viceroys, Viscounts, and Barons—that had a seat in the House of Lords. They support many popular issues to get support; but, their primary goal: block taxes on the wealthy.

On This Week [Jan. 29, 2012]—Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of being “fundamentally dishonest”—but, on this very show: he misstated the facts:

He said, "We (i.e., Republicans)…..”passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as a result of which there were four consecutive balanced budgets, the only time in your lifetime we've had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

TAPPER: Speaker Gingrich, just for the record, I think two of those four balanced budgets were under you. But moving on, we have time for one last question, and that is, you...

GINGRICH: Well, just for the record -- just for the record, Jake, all four of those came out of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

That is blatantly false: the big increase in the revenues came from the tax increases in the Debt Reduction Act of 1993, which he voted against and all Republicans.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was designed to balance the budget by 2002 by making $160 billion in spending cuts; mostly, in Medicare and children’s healthcare between 1998 and 2002. However, some of those reduced payments to doctors, hospitals, and nurse practitioners were restored in 1999 and 2000. It had little to do with President’s Clinton’s four budget surpluses: $69 billion in 1998, $123 billion 1999, $230 billion in 2000, and $127 billion in 2001: totaling: $549 billion.

Posted Jan. 6, 2012   George McGovern is Right
    He said on the Charlie Rose Show Jan. 5: The Reagan and Bush Jr. tax cuts on the wealthy are the cause of the two Big Bulges in Deficits—along with increases in Military Spending.
   And he said, "I believe in the graduated income tax that we got under Woodrow Wilson--now, years ago. I think it is the foundation stone of all these programs to strengthen the United States. It
means the more you make, the higher your tax rate goes. And, that is the only fair way to do it."

Posted 1/2/12 2011
There has been a 100% blackout of my allegations, truths, and tax principles by the Mass Media in 2011—preventing the public or voters from learning the truth [or facts].

My book, The Estate Tax and Politics is now available as a Kindle E-book at Amazon.com for $0.99. Click on the following link to purchase: www.amazon.com/dp/B006YY1YWE

Note: These 4 books have been revised, corrected and updated for the Kindle edition. Some graphs did not carry over due to limitations of the mobi format to which they had to be converted to. Text OK.

                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

Posted 7/28/11 Most Republicans are Bad Men: Why? I will tell you!
                                                             ^{[corrected Aug. 8, 2011]}
                                                                  &
                                                 ^{Updated 7/29/} ^{and   8/8/11}
                                                                            &
                                          revised 8/15/11, 8/21/11 & 8/22/11

Posted 8/15/11                          The Super Committee

Posted 8/19/11                My new Book: The Tax Guardian is now available
                                                             ^{[see cover and details below]

Posted 8/23/11       TWO BOOKs (given to....}
^{Posted 9/23/11}^{Nine More Books given to..........



Posted 8/26/11    Republican Rich Perry is a Loose Cannon and a Phony-Christian}
Posted 9/13/11          Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate Tidbit

Posted 10/3/11    Eli Broad, the Consummate Tax-Dodger

Followed by older postings:
Posted 7/5/11                           Refuting (Alan Reynolds)-----
Posted 5/31/11                           Oil Executives Testify [5-12-11]
Posted 5/3/11                                 Four Billionaires Speak Out.......
Posted 4/5/11                           Obama's State of Union Address, Part I
Posted 4/25/11                             Obama's State of Union Speech, Part II

   Obama said about Speaker of the House, John Boehner, “I think he is a good man” on national TV. He is being kind—or conciliatory. The truth is: He is a bad man. He is a lair—twists the facts and does not represent the people—and he knows it. That is why he drinks too much, he has a guilty conscience. He represents the wealthy—millionaires—like himself --not the majority of the people.
         His loyalty is to the GOP.
         He said on the national TV: "The American people understand that tax hikes destroys jobs.” That is a big fat lie—or republican propaganda
         President Bill Clinton raised taxes and created 22 million jobs in eight years in office, which resulted in four years of budget surpluses.
         President George W. Bush lowered taxes—and created 3 million jobs and added $4.5 trillion to the National Debt in eight years.
        There was some background differences—but, you can’t make that statement: he habitually twists things around.
       He said, “Demos not willing to make a deal” --that is another big fat lie. He said on National TV: “no tax increases ever on the table.” He is not willing to make a deal. He would rather the nation default on its debt—than, raise taxes on the richest Americans, who gain the most from US productivity.
       Americans are not over taxed—not federally: 49 % of households pay no federal income tax. The income top tax has been cut in half, since 1981: the capital gains tax has been reduced from 39% to 15%, since 1976, likewise dividends. The estate tax—has been lowered from 55% to 35% and the exemption raised from $60,000 to $5 million, double for joint filers; so, only 0.14 percent estates are subject to the estate [or death] tax compared to 7.6 percent in 1976.
      Corporations paid –7.4% in taxes--as a percentage of GDP in 1945—in 2010: 1.3 percent: OECD average: 3.5 percent.
       These are some of reasons we have a soaring National Debt. It is a revenue problem: primarily, and secondarily, a spending problem.
        In 2011, the congress approved $159 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan--but, no tax increase. That is the problem, since 2001.
        No tax increases to fund the Afghanistan and Iraq wars—projected total cost: $3-4 trillion. JFK said, the cost of freedom is always high, but, Americans have always paid for it.” That is not true: not Republicans.
        Currently, 41senators and 240 members of the House, the vast majority republicans, signed the no-tax increase pledge. They want to cut social programs to pay for these wars: education, research, food stamps, healthcare, Social Security, etc.
        Social Security has a $2.6 paid-in-surplus: republicans don’t want to reimburse the trust fund—to repay the money it borrowed to pay for tax cuts on the richest Americans. Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK), said on the Charlie Rose show, “That is what we have stolen from it …” That is the naked truth.
        Republicans voted for these wars—and refuse to raise taxes to pay for them: they are anti-American war surtax deadbeats.
        Another bad man: Rep. Jim Jordan (R).
        CBS’s Nancy Cordes asked him on the evening news: “How much can speaker Boehner give in taxes and still get your vote.”
         He said, “can’t get anything.”
         She asked then, “what about closing loopholes, can you live with that?” He said, “No”. Not willing to give a cent—to pay for the stolen $2.6 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund--or the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
         Here is his bad voting record:
         Vote No to make limits on C)2 emissions
         Signed the Death Tax repeal act (2009)
         Voted No on increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 (2007)
         Voted No on assisting workers who lose their job due to globalization.
         Voted No on $60 billion stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, and energy (2008)
         Voted No on $15 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler (2008)
         Voted No on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (2009)
         Voted No adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP (2007).
         Voted No on regulating the subprime mortgage industry (2007)
         Voted Yes to authorize military force in Iraq
          Signed a pledge—to repeal any federal healthcare take takeover.
          He gets: government taxpayer paid medical insurance for himself and family; but, he is against it for others.
         He also signed the no-tax-hike pledge.
        The third bad man: Majority Leader in the House, Eric Cantor (R): he walked out of a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal—because it included the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
        Senator Reid called him, “childish” and “should not participate in the talks.” That is correct. Here is how he reverses things, he said: “When is it, their going to show the American people, they are willing to do the job they were sent here to do.” That statement should be directed at republicans: the American people want a balance approach to deficit reduction: that includes tax increases. When, you reverse the truth, then, you are the Devil.
        He also has an abysmal voting record.
        Voted No to limit CO2 emissions
        Voted Yes to eliminate the Death Tax (2001)
        Voted Yes to reduce capital gains tax (2001)
        Voted Yes on tax cuts package of $958 billion over ten years
      Voted Yes on making the Bush tax cuts permanent (2002)
      Voted Yes on authorizing military force in Iraq (Oct. 2002)
        Vote Yes on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends Dec. 2005 during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Rated Zero—by CTJ [for opposition to progressive taxation].
        Signed the no-tax-hike pledge
        The fourth bad man: Senator Mitch McConnell (R) said, “No deficit deal until Obama goes.” He is a plutocrat—putting his party before the good of the nation. And, race appears to be a factor.
         He wants to sabotage the success of a black-democrat president—in order, to get a white republican president in office in 2013.
         His main goal: block taxes-hikes on the rich.
         I have already listed McConnell’s and Boehner’s—voting record in my posting: 2/28/10—The Dysfunctional Congress.
         Both support the two wars.
         Both signed the no-tax-hike pledge
         Both rated 0 by the CTJ.
         The fifth bad man: House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R), he said: “I’ve never found one tax that created a job.”
        He is an ignorant—bastard.
        The Revenue Act of 1932 funded the Hoover Dam, which created jobs, supplied a vast supply of renewable energy, provided flood control and farmers in several states with a dependable supply of water.
        The energy and water supply—in turn created other jobs.
        FDR raised taxes to fund the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Work Progress Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc, all of which created jobs. Higher taxes up to 91% during the nearly twelve years he was in office reduced unemployment from 24.9% in 1933 to 1.9% in 1945.
        He said: “There is no revenue problem, it as spending.” That is false. He entered office after the Bush tax cuts were passed
        However, he signed the no-tax-hike pledge.
        He said, “There will be no new tax.” He refuses to pay for the US National Debt of $14.3 trillion. He is a puppet of the plutocracy.
        Voted No on $60 billion stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, and energy (2008).
        Voted No on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution [2009].
        Voted No on expanding the children’s Health Insurance program [2009].
        Voted No on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation [2009 and 2007].
        Voted No on increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 [2007].
        Voted No on regulating the subprime mortgage industry [2007]
        The sixth bad man: Senator Jon Kyl (R), he also walked out of the greater deficit reduction plan also, because, it included tax increases on the wealthy. He voted for Bush to invade Iraq, and like most republicans refuses to pay for it.
      He voted for all the Bush tax cuts.
      He voted No on increasing the tax rate for people earning over $1 million—and Yes on permanently repealing the “death tax”.
        He also is rated zero by CTJ.
        He also signed the no-tax-hike pledge.
        He joined the chorus of Republicans, saying, “Our problem is not that we are taxed too little. Our problem is we are spending way too much.”
        That is two big lies:
        Taxes on the wealthy have never been lower since the 1931, when the top rate was 25%, but, when you included deductions, tax breaks, and tax credits, today’s effective rate for the richest Americans is lower.
       The 400 richest Americas paid on average 18%. Before Bush lowered the capital gains and dividend tax to 15%: they paid: 30%.
       Most republicans are in the same row-boat; i.e., vote in unison with most other republicans: thieves, betrayers of the majority of people, disloyal Americans: refusing to pay its debts, willing to destroy Americans good credit, and misrepresent the facts—to benefit the top 5 percent, which includes them.
        Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) stated it correctly. He blamed the abandonment of a bigger deficit reduction goal on “Republicans fixation with protecting the tax breaks for corporation special interests and the very wealthy.”
       They want us to believe: increases taxes on the rich—will kill jobs and slow the economic recovery. That is a big lie. The purpose of tax increases on the rich, is not primarily to create jobs—it purpose: is to pay for government FY expanses, so that budget deficits—don’t build up.
       What is killing jobs—is foreign competition, out sourcing, trade imbalance, interest on debt paid to foreign nations and investors, laying off of workers to increase profits, laying off state and city employees to balance the budget, etc. Tax rates on the wealthy—have never been lower since 1931 and there is high unemployment and a sputtering, slow growing economy.
        Two-thirds of voters say a deficit reduction package should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That puts the republican pledge signers, in direct opposition to majority will.
       Therefore, I say: voters should be more careful who they vote into office; because, our present debt crisis: they bought on themselves.
        And, you know what—it will get worst before it gets better, because most republicans are unreasonable miscreants.
        They raised the debt ceiling seven times for Bush, a republican president—and only three times for Obama—a democrat president.
      Boehner called the debt—Obama’s problem—that is a lie: it was created mostly, by Reagan and Bush tax cuts: two republican presidents and the congress. The congress passed Obama’s $3.6 trillion, 2010 budget (i.e., allocation of money)--but, rejected most of Obama’s tax proposals to raise revenues.
         I have listed seven—in my posting: 3/2409: The Dysfunctional Congress.
         But, you know what: the cap on debt is unconstitutional—because, the 14th Amendment—Section 4 states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law….shall not be questioned.”
       Obama taught constitutional law—and yet: he says: Social Security payments could be halted—if, congress fails to raise the debt ceiling.
       The constitution states: the US must pay its debts—authorized by law--including “debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion.”
       So President Obama should read it.
       Section 5 states, “The Congress shall have power to "enforce, by appropriate legislation"-- the provisions of the 14th Amendment.”
       Congress cannot cap the debt—because, it is legally bound to it pays its debts. If, you want to place a non-moveable cap on debt—then, you must change the constitution. So, the battle between democrats and republicans is a big hoax: the US is legally bound to pay its debt.
       The cap would prevent payment of legal debt—that would not be considered appropriate legislation.
        Now, why are most republicans bad men—I have named six; but nearly all are in the same rowboat. Here is the proof:
        Sen. Mitch Connell said to talk show host, Laura Ingraham, “I bet there won’t be a single Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling…”
       That would violate the constitution: the 14th Amendment, Section 4, --Congress must take appropriate action to pay US Debt.
        Here is the plan of the republicans: they will raise the debt ceiling—if, democrats agree to their spending cuts.
        That is not an option: they must raise the debt ceiling—to prevent default. Congress has only two deficit reduction choices: cut spending and raise taxes. If, they can’t agree —they must raise the cap to avoid default.
       President Obama says, he is willing to compromises: cut spending.
        Republicans refuse to compromise: raise taxes
        Here is why: 41 senators and 240 House members, most of all republicans, have signed the no tax-hike pledge, which opposes any and all tax increases; particularly, on millionaires and billionaires.
        That is a pact with the Devil.
         It came from Grover Norquist—he was born and grew up rich. He founded the Americans for Tax Reform in 1986—at the behest of President Reagan. The organization should be called, Republicans for Tax Reform. Norquist says: the pledge rules out even proposals to kill outrageous tax loopholes. It is unconstitutional—because, members of congress that sign it: refuse to pay US debts.
                      a. the borrowed $2.6 trillion S.S. paid-in-surplus.
                      b. The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq wars
                      c. the war on global terrorism
                      d. the principle on US Treasures.
                      e. the interest on US Treasuries.
                     f. the payment of congress passed FY budgets [deficits]
       They want to solve US revenue problem--by cutting domestic programs; such as: education, Medicaid, research, food stands, Social Security, Medicare, etc. They are in violation of 14th Amendment, if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, if the opposite side refuses to agree to their spending cuts. Likewise, the democrats can not refuse to raise the debt ceiling, if, Republicans refuse to raise taxes.
       You cannot say No—to debt payment—because you disagree with either one of two alternatives: cutting spending and raising taxes.
       The reason: it was requested by Reagan and founded in 1986 was to protect the rich from future tax increases--or keep them low where Reagan set them: that is unconstitutional—violates the 14th Amendment: it has caused incalculable damage to the US government. Norquist, founder and president of ATR, is an idiot. He doubts the validity of global warming science, and says: its policies hurts consumers. He should visit tornado ravaged Joplin, Missouri, or Tuscaloose, Alabama. He opposed President Clinton’s healthcare plan. He backed Bush for president in 2000 and 2004—and helped to craft his tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans; was involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal--donations from the Choctaw Indian tribe were funneled through ATR to finance certain lobbying campaigns. He is one of the most power non-elected republicans in Washington, DC. His organization is funded by the super-rich. His main job: get members of congress to sign his pledge: to oppose all and any tax increases; particularly, on the wealthy.
      Signers of the Norquist pledge--refuse to raise taxes to pay for the following past US debts—authorized by Congress.
       President Reagan:
       He spent $84.8 billion of the Social Trust Fund paid-in-surplus off budget—for other government expenses.
        His eight year fiscal deficits: total $1.338 trillion
        President Bush Sr.
      He spent $211.7 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund paid-in-surplus off budget—for other government expenses.
        His four year fiscal deficits: total $944.4 billion
        President Clinton:
        He spent $793.4 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund paid-in-surplus off budget—for other government expenses..
        His eight year fiscal deficits: total $684.4 billion.
         President Bush Jr.
         He spent $1.379 trillion of Social Security Frust Fund paid-in-surplus off budget—for other government expenses.
         His eight year fiscal deficits: total $2.762 trillion
       President Obama:
       He spent $88 billion of Social Security Trust Fund paid-in-surplus off budget—for other government expenses.
        His 2009 and 2010 deficits: total $2.710 trillion.
        Here is the point: the 41 senators and 240 house members, the vast majority Republicans, that signed the Norquist no-tax-hike pledge: refuse to pay for the $2.556 trillion congress siphoned off from the Social Security Trust Fund: that constitutes stealing.
       They also refuse to pay for the FY budget deficits of five presidents: three republicans: totaling $8.548 trillion.
       Income inequality in the United State is at an all-time record—surpassing the levels of the Great Depression.
       Yet—signers of the Pledge—refuse to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
       Wealth and political power is an evil force trying to gain power throughout all nations of the world and the US is no exception. It is second to top of all nations that have the greatest income inequality.
        The House Republican bill: “Cut, Cap, and Balance”--is a bad bill. Senator Harry Reid called it, “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to be placed on the floor of the United State Senate.” It places a cap on spending--as a percentage of GDP. The cap—means: it would rely on spending cuts to correct a breach. They are enforced by sequestration. Here is the worst part: the Balanced Budget Amendment SEC. 301, (a), requires a 2/3rds majority in both Houses to raise taxes. In makes it easy to cut spending and hard to raise taxes: they should be equal. It is designed to balance the budget, by cutting domestic programs; preferably, rather, than raise taxes to match revenues with outlays. Cuts are mandatory to stay within prescribed spending limits; but, no mandatory tax increases to match outlays. It is a one sided bill: it does not require revenues to equal or total a certain percentage of GDP. It is designed to protect the income and wealth of the wealthiest Americans from higher taxation and reply primarily on discretionary spending cuts to balance the budget. And, if members of congress are allowed to refuse to pay US debts--by signing a pledge—opposing any and all tax increases—that will make it next to impossible to raise taxes on the wealthy—not even for wars, recessions, natural disasters, --or payoff US bonds, etc
       The Republicans members in the House and Senate are dead-set on protecting Reagan and Bush tax cuts; particularly, on the wealthy. That is the battle in the US congress. By signing the pledge—refusing to raise taxes to pay US debt--that is a violation of the constitution. They cut their income, capital gains, dividend, and estate taxes—and use the built up crushing US debt—as an excuse to cut domestic programs: healthcare, education, food stamps, layoff government employees, etc.
      They must raise the cap—if, they fail to reach a compromise on cutting spending and raising taxes. Five-term Rep. Tom Cole (R) said, he has never seen any spending reductions attached to a debt ceiling vote. Why, it is extortion. It violates the 14th Amendment, Section 4.
      The only reason for not paying debt—inability: setting an arbitrary cap: to be used as a weapon to trigger default—causing harm to the financial system; if, the other side refuses to meet their demands--is an act or terrorism. Presently, there is no inability to pay higher taxes: the rich are loaded.
       It was been raised 74 times, since 1962—when Congress has not been able to agree on debt reduction. It cannot be used: to prevent payment of debt—or trigger default—as the Republicans are threatening.
       The cap does not have legal teeth. If, you can’t reach an agreement on debt reduction; then, you must raise the cap. It can’t be used as a bargaining chip: to force the other side to make spending cuts.
       Most Republicans are an extremely unreasonable group of disloyal Americans, willing to destroy US’s good credit rating to save their tax cuts. They authorized two wars, sent thousands of men to die and suffer mutilating injuries; then, refused to pay for it: costing: $1.3 trillion, so far. They misrepresents facts to the American people, they are thieves: borrowed the S.S. paid-in-surplus, and now refuse to raise taxes to pay off $2.6 trillion in non-negotiable bonds--or IOUs. They have betrayed the will of the people and turned this nation into a plutocracy.
       The people have been deceived into believing the ATR pledge represents them: it doesn’t. Obama has not proposed tax increases on workers and the middle class. The Pledge, mostly, protects the top 5 percent of incomers.
      The republican plan—does not address debts that were created since, 1981, which republicans refuse to pay for.
      Their plan—concerns—the reduction of future deficits: they refuse to address the $12.3 trillion debt created by the past four presidents: three republicans and congress --caused by under taxation—and Obama, the fifth, who inherited the accumulated deficits of the last 31 years and Bush’s 2008 engendered housing-stock-market-bubble-burst-recession.
       He tried to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts—but republicans refused to cooperate and demanded more cuts on the wealthy—to pass jobless benefits.
       The most recent poll: 81 percent of people polled said, they favor higher taxes on millionaires; yet, these six named republicans—and others in congress have signed a pledge--in direct opposition to the majority of people. They have made a pack with the Devil—to refuse payment of legal US debt.
        I have listed them: the FY budget deficits from 1981 to 2010—and the $2.6 trillion Social Security paid-in-surplus [stolen].
       These debts—were created by tax cuts, mostly on the rich, therefore, they must be paid for, by tax increases, mostly, on the rich.
       Cutting future entitlement is not a solution—to paying for budget deficit created by the last four presidents and congress.
       Therefore, I say: voters should be more careful who they vote into office; because, our present debt crisis: they bought on themselves.
       And, you know what—it will get worst before it gets better, because most republicans are unreasonable miscreants—unwilling to compromise. They deceived voters with their false arguments and bogus tax-schemes.
       Boehner called the debt—Obama’s problem—that is a lie: it was created; mostly,  by Reagan and Bush, two republican presidents, and the congress—and Grover Norquist—who is a non-elected agent of the Washington DC plutocracy—gathering signatures from members of congress to prevent payment of US debt: caused by the Reagan and Bush cuts on income, dividends and capital gains.
        Big deficits—commenced—with the Reagan tax cuts.
        They were reduced by the Clinton tax increases.
        Then, increased again by the Bush tax cuts.
        Congress has passed Obama’s 2009 and 2010 budget—but, they rejected most of Obama's tax proposals to raise revenues.
      But, most of all: people should be more careful who they voted into office. Most republicans are not your friends on tax reform—unless you’re in the top 5 percent of earners. People are not in the same tax brackets
       Their no-tax-hike pledge is not to protect you—the working man or the middle class: it is to protect the wealthiest Americans.
       Republicans are dead-set on a flatter income tax—repealing the estate tax—and even, eliminating the dividend and capital gains taxes.
       Their plan of attack: reduce—then, repeal.
       Republicans also refuse to eliminate corporate tax loopholes—because, they have been bribed by big corporations—to keep them. The bribe comes in the form of campaign contributions to law makers; particularly, republicans.
        And, the Supreme Court made it easier to rig elections.
        Wealth linked to political power is an evil force trying to gain power throughout all nations of the world--and the US is no exception. It is second to top of all nations, which have the most income inequality.
       And that income inequality is at an all-time high, even surpasses the levels of the Great Depression; yet—most republicans signed the Pledge—not to raise taxes, even on the wealthiest Americans.
        Republicans in the House and Senate are dead-set on protecting their wealth and political power and Reagan and Bush tax cuts at all cost. That is the battle in the US congress—including lying [or distortion].
        July 24th, Senator Jon Kyl said on Face the Nation, “We have by far and way the highest in the world [corporate tax rate]. That is not true: Chad is higher 40%, Japan dropped its rate from 39.5% to 30% in April 1; but, many countries are close to the US: Argentina 35%, Brazil 34%, India 33.99% [foreign companies 42.2%], Belgium 33.99%, France 33.33%. But, there is one difference: the US corporate tax is graduating: from 15% under $50,000 to 35% over $18,333,333. But, what counts are the actual taxes paid after deductions, tax breaks, and loopholes. Of the G-8 and BRIC countries: the US had the fourth lowest effective rate: Germany, Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, and Italy were higher.
Citizens for Tax Justice, recently, put out a report stating 12 major corporations, like, Honeywell, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, and General Electric—in three years--made a pretax profit of $171 billion, paid zero in taxes, and got $2.5 billion back from the Treasury.
          Because, all states—except four—have a corporate income tax; I am in favor of lowering the federal rate to 25% on domestic or territorial income and 5%-10% on foreign-source income--if, loopholes and tax havens are eliminated, some deductions modified, and some subsidies eliminated. CW Money, April 8, 2011, in an article titled: Lower Corporate Taxes Won’t Create More Jobs--by Nin-Hai Tseng, she said, while the corporate rate is technically high “the effective (or the percentage what is paid in federal corporate taxes) is about 13% to 15%, which is relatively low even by international standards.”
       Sen. Jon Kyl is a deceitful plutocrat [liar]. It is not by far and way the highest effective rate in the world. The problem as I see it: is the loopholes and excessive taxation of non-territorial income—but, neither should it be zero: corporations must help pay for the US military presence in the world.
        Most low-low taxed countries don’t have that burden.
       The $1-$1.6 trillion foreign source income sitting in off-shore tax havens: should be taxed 10% plus a 5% war surtax. The fact—it can escape US taxation: by keeping the money in banks in foreign countries—is a tax loophole. They are paying zero taxes for the US government, US natural resource exploitation, and US labor force contribution to non-territorial corporate income: 15% is not excessive.
       One solution; if, the legislative process fails to correct tax code inequities [individual and corporate] --armed revolt against the US government-- that day might come—as it has in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria.
       We are now at a crossroads: the republicans are acting like the Gaddafi regime: refusing to budge. They have sold the people a rotten bill of goods: Boehner said, “It’s not in the best interest of our country [i.e., to hike taxes on the rich]”—referring to President Obama’s plan.”
       His reason: they are job-creators. If that is true, than, why is the real rate of unemployment 16.5% to 22%, when, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires in the last decade.
       Excessive taxation on businesses—kills jobs—not high taxes on the richest Americans: they invest their money in Private Equity and Hedge Funds.
      Poverty at the bottom is caused by the concentration of wealth at the top: progressive taxation corrects that.
       Tax revenues can be used to create jobs—where the private sector fails. But, tax increases, are not primarily for the purpose of creating jobs: they are for the payment of governments outlays—so that FY deficits don’t build up. High government debt can cripple the government, prevent funding of needed programs and projects, and cause layoffs.
       There are two sides to job-creation.
       If, this battle in congress—over raising the debt limit—does not including tax increases on the most affluent—and the elimination of corporate tax loopholes; then, the dispute has reached the tipping point: Congress—the legal means of changing the law has failed. The majority members of the House—have abdicated their power to raise taxes to pay for US Debts, essential services, and public work projects.
       The people have spoken! The latest poll: 81 percent favor tax increases on millionaires, if, republicans refuse: it is in violation of the people’s will.
       It is the bases for armed insurrection. The ballet box has failed; because, the mass media has distorted the truth—or lied.
       It refuses to make these allegations—public.
        I have made the facts—or truth known: I leave to the people to decide what action should be taken.
       Without spending cuts and big tax increases: the debt crisis will get worst and drag on for decades.
       There are only two means of reducing deficits: cutting spending and raising taxes: Republicans have surrendered one to the Devil.
       The Supreme Court should step in—and rule the Norquist pledge—unconstitutional: fine and sentence these people who signed the pledge to prison for 2 years: for violating the 14th Amendment, Section 4, of the US constitution.
       And, Norquist, the Devil incarnate, should be given the death penalty, for setting up a roadblock --to prevent payment of US debt.
       That would straighten out the US Congress.
       How can a member of congress pass a budget, and—then, sign a pledge—refusing to pay for it. That would ruin America’s good credit rating—and have a devastating monetary effect on the mass of people.
       The plutocrats—or republicans—have gone one step further: they raised the estate tax exemption from $60,000 in 1976 to $5 million in 2010 and lowered the top rate from 55% to 35%, so that--they can’t be held liability for the National Debt. They want the tax completely repeal—accept no responsibility or liability for the US Debt—they created during their life-time.
       There must be a complete overhaul of the tax code—to solve the growing debt crisis, that will end in US bankruptcy—if, not cured.
       Spending cuts alone—can not do it.
       The rebels trying to get rid of Gaddafi, is no diffident than what is taken place in America: plutocrats have inveigled their way into power with the help of their deep pocketed friends, convincing the voters the no-tax-hike pledge protects them, and will not yield to what is right and fair.
       The Congress is controlled by a group of bad men: I named six in congress. However, nearly all Republicans are in the same boat: they row or vote in unison. It is party—politics.
       Rep. McCarthy said, “We all stick together.”
       Republicans don’t vote their conscience: they vote—as party bosses—dictate: sign the pledge—or no party support.
       Even, Senator McCain signed the pledge in 2000, when he ran for president: he must have known better—or he is an imbecile.
      That is like—determining a person is guilty—before going to trial—and hearing the evidence.
      George H. W. Bush got in that trap—and facts forced him to change his mind; but, his son—is an intransigent miscreant.
       Doesn’t it seem strange: no republican running for the presidency—has proposed higher taxes on the rich.
       Even, Mitt Romney, the front running, has signed the pledge. Republicans are no different than the Gaddafi regime.
      That won’t change—without armed rebellion—or when, the people are enlightened, mobilized, and energized… and since the plutocracy owns the mass median—they are currently being misled and the truth suppressed.
      July 22, Boehner broke off talks. He defines President Obama’s tax proposals as: “a tax increase on the American people.” That is not accurate. It is a tax on the richest Americans. That is how he distorts things.
Monday, July 25                    Debt Crisis Speech
    President Obama was right on--spoke clearly and concisely--and I noticed only one major mistake, he said: “raising the debt ceiling does not allow congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay bills that congress as already racked up”
       Actually, it does both.
       A second possible mistake, he said: “Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in healthcare programs like Medicare” He can’t use this money to reduce the deficit and fund Obamacare. He hast to do one—or the other.
       He also said, “The 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None.” I can’t agree with that. The estimated deficit for 2011: $1.6 trillion: requires major spending cuts and tax increases to solve the Debt—including workers and the middle class.
       Unfortunately, they don’t want to hear that.
        Otherwise, his speech was fairly good—truthful.
        Speaker of House, Boehner’s rebuttal: contains some truths, but, numerous major misrepresentations.
        #1. He said, a big reason for the unemployment—“the spending binge in Washington [referring to democrats]” That is mostly false. It was caused by Bush’s economic-tax polices: starting two wars—and not raising taxes to pay for them—and putting the cost on America’s credit card.
        Secondly, it was caused by the false prosperity bubble that Bush pumped up until it burst: resulting in a deep recession and job losses. This was done--so, he could say: his tax cuts grew the economy.
        The whole thing—backfired on him.
        Thirdly, Medicare, Part D, an unfunded mandate—that annually cost about $55 billion, which most republicans voted for—and most democrats did not. It was pushed through congress to help Bush’s re-election.
        Fourthly, RIM recently announced plans to layoff 2,000 workers, citing heavy competition …..that is another big reason.
        Republicans like to blame Obama.
        #2. He called President Obama’s balanced approach: “we spend more…you pay more”, when it is: cut spending and raise taxes.”
        #3. He said, “Having run a small business, I know tax increases kill jobs.” But, Obama is not proposing tax increases—on small businesses to reduce the deficit, he is proposing a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans—and the elimination of corporate tax loopholes to raise revenues.
        He should answer this question—why, are there so many job losses--when we are operating under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
         These tax cuts--created a big deficit and the need for higher taxes to bring the deficit down and create jobs.
         #4. He said, the President wants a “blank check” He is referring to extending the debt ceiling through 2012. Why not, it is invalid anyways. The cap was raised 7 times under Bush, so, far, only: three times for Obama: not raising it: is a violation of the 14th Amendment, Section 4. I am not sure Congress understands this. So, republicans continue to refuse to raise the cap—to extort spending cuts.
        Even, if, the debt ceiling is extended through 2012—it is not a “blank check”—because, republicans controls the House and spending—not the president. The purpose of raising the cap—is to avoid default.
       #5. He said, “There is no stalemate in congress.” That is false: the republicans refuse to compromise: raise taxes on the rich. He should have said, “there is no stalemate among Republicans member of the Congress. He distorts—almost everything.
        #6. He said, “the government is so big and expensive it’s sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.”
       That is false: three major things are sapping the economy:
                 1. The cost of two war …[$426 billion for Afghanistan and $803 billion for Iraq so far].
                 2. Interest on debt….[$385.9 billion for the first nine months of 2011].
               3. Trade deficit…[$53.1 billion, June 2011]
       The government is so expensive—not because of domestic programs—it is, because, of the cost of fighting two wars and third biggest budget cost: interest on debt. Boehner called the war surtax: “one of the most irresponsible proposals I’ve seen in a long, long, time.” He supports both wars and refuses to pay for them He is a lying, disloyal American bastard.
        He deserves the death penalty.
        Domestic programs are the bedrock of society. both Social Security and Medicare, Part A, have a paid-in-surplus.
        That leaves education, clean energy, public work projects, and Medicaid—federal-state funded medical care for the poor, disabled, and children.
        I have left out the military—because, Obama has a plan to end these two wars; but, their costs are still on the books and growing…..
         One important difference between the two:
        President Obama called on voters to make their voices heard. If, you want a balance approach to reducing the deficit, he said, “Let your member of congress know.” That what a democratic President does.
        Rep. Boehner, on the other hand—did not seek a public consensus: he fears they might disagree with the House plan: no taxes increases on the wealthiest Americans, just cuts in domestic programs—to reduce the debt. Republicans seek a censuses among themselves. That is what a plutocracy does.
       They ignore what the people want.
        I read: the people want compromise.
        Let’s see what happens—Aug. 2 is drawing near!

        Speaker of House, Boehner (R) could not get his Terrorist Act passed in the House (i.e., the second Debt Limit Plan) -- Thursday evening. He said at a news conference, “This bill is not perfect.” It contains no tax increases to reduce the rapidly growing $14.3 trillion US Debt.
        Stage 1:
        It contained $917 billion in mandatory spending cuts—for raising the debt ceiling $900 billion --or US Debt-Default—Devastation.
         Stage 2:
         It contains a second bomb—a vote next year—to raise the debt limit another $1.6 trillion—for another $1.7 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over the next decade; if, not passed, it would trigger US Debt-Default--Devastation.
           Raising the US Debt cap--both times were contingent upon on making mandatory: dollar for dollar spending cuts.
         Senate restarts talks on their plan….

       July 29, the House passed it original bill: “Cut, Cap, and Balance”: 234 to 190. This is a bad piece of legislation—it relies on mandatory spending cuts to meet specified spending limits—a percentage of GDP. It does not require: an equal amount of spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget.
        It also illegally links—raising the Debt cap—to the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. You can’t place a cap—on the debt ceiling—that would result in default: the US government not paying its debts.
       The payment of legal debt—is guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment: that gives the US its stellar—or triple A credit rating.
       The balanced budget amendment—might be a good idea—it depends on the wording: how a deadlock between parties would be resolved, when one party wants spending cuts and the other tax increases, etc.
        HR 2560 does not balance the budget—by making matching spending cuts and tax increases; as, you might think.
      HR 2650 sets the spending cap—at a certain percentage of GDP: 21.7% for 2013, and reduces it gradually until 2021, which is ridiculous: no man can see that far ahead. The main objective: cut discretionary spending. It would require: 2/3rds majority in both Houses to waive the cap—except for wars.
       It could create more trouble—than solutions.
     For example:
      The GDP for 2010 was $14.5 trillion--21.7% of that: $3.1 trillion: the 2010 budget: $3.6 trillion: republicans would not likely agree to cut the military budget, so, $500 billion would be cut from domestic spending—and that would still leave a sizable FY deficit.
       Raising taxes to pay for the $500 billion override—would not be an option: cutting spending would be the only option—or waive the Cap.
       It sets the spending limit—at 19.9% of GDP for 2021.
       If needed to reduce overspend: the poor, infants, students, and the sick would bear the blunt of spending cuts-- and/or reductions in the workforce—and/or certain infrastructure projects: such as, flood control, repairing bridges, or building the high speed train would be suspended, etc.
       The worst provision: requires a 2/3rds majority in both Houses to raise taxes including closing loopholes, etc.
      That would make it nearly impossible to raise taxes; particularly, on the wealthy—and rather easy to lower by a simple majority—once lowered: nearly impossible to reverse.
       And, since, their taxes are presently at low [income]-low [dividend]-low [capital gains] and low [estate] level: they want to add the 2/3rds majority requirement in both Houses—now--to make it nearly impossible to raise in the future. That favors the wealthy.
   This is very badly designed bill.
   229 republicans voted for the bill—only 9 voted No.
       5 democrats voted Yes—181 No.
       California has a 2/3rds majority vote rule to pass any tax increase: that favors deficit reduction by spending cuts--rather than tax increases. California is different than the federal government, in that, beside an income tax, it has property and sales taxes. In the last budget battle: republicans refused to raise taxes, so, fees were raised, 70 parks were closed, deep cuts were made in state services, college tuition was raised, and state employees were layoff, etc.
         So, whether a Balanced Budget Amendment is good or bad--depends on design: the wording in the House bill is tricky--written in legalese.
         That means: so, you can't understand it.
          I would bet--most freshman congressmen--who voted for HR 2650--if, were asked: what the strikeouts and insertions in underlying bills: mean: they couldn't tell you.
       The reason for a federal balance budget amendment: to force unreasonable members of congress to be reasonable—by imposing penalties—to break a deadlock—and force the government to live within certain pre-set limits.
       The pre-set limits—may not conform to reality—therein—lays the problem: how to adjust—to cost overrides—or revenues shortfalls—or unpredictable events, such as: recessions, wars, natural disasters, etc.
      Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, has repeatedly stated: “the House is not going to support any increase in taxes.”
    July 30, the House bill was rejected by the Senate.
       The Senate bill was peremptorily—rejected by the House—in retaliation for the Senate nixing the House bill.
       The Senate vote on the Reid bill: fell 10 votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster and was shelved.
       Sunday [evening], July 31—President Obama announces a deal had been reached between Republicans and Democrats.
       August 1, S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011, passed the House--August 2, passed the Senate--and Obama was forced to sign it—to avoid Doomsday.
       The debt ceiling was raised $2.5 trillion.
       The bill’s stage 1 requires $917 billion in spending cuts over ten years without requiring higher taxes—or new revenues.
       Stage 2: a committee of 6 democrats and 6 republicans will decide what an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction should be. They have until Thanksgiving to complete that task.
     Congress has until Christmas to pass those recommendations.
       Also—Congress is required to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
If, congress cannot agree on spending cuts or pass a Balance Budget Amendment --it would trigger an automatic $1.2 trillion cuts in spending: 50-50 military and domestic.
       Here is where the bill is flawed.
       The super committee can consider tax reform—or raise taxes—but, the bill does not require congress to match spending cuts with tax increases in stage 1, 2, or 3.
        It is not balanced or lopsided.
   The $2.4 trillion in spending cuts and no tax increases is not going to prevent the US debt ratio to GDP expansion. It is too small. The estimated deficit for 2012: $1.1 trillion: cuts would amount to about only $21 billion.
      Things are going to get worst—not better.
       The Tea Party is to blame for robbing President Obama of the power of raising taxes—on the rich and closing corporate loopholes
       Their votes: gave control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans, who are blocking the “balanced approach.”
       They believe all tax increases are bad.
    The republican plan does nothing to pay off the $14.3 trillion National debt created in past 31 years. It lets it sit on the books and draw interest—and debilitate the economy—for decades or forever. Yes, US treasuries have expiration dates; but, they are paid off by selling more US Treasures [borrowing]. The $2.4 trillion in spending cuts—only slightly reduces future deficits.
        Voters are not properly enlightened.
The pain of non-payment will get worst every year, until voters and congress get serious about comprehensive tax reform
   The $14.3 trillion national debt—is the buildup of annual deficits—caused by under taxation. It must be solved, by tax increases—on those that received the Reagan and Bush tax cuts—or baulk.
    I predict—cutting taxes—to grow the economy—the Republican scheme--to pay off the national debt is going to fail.
      It will make the rich—richer, the bottom 90% poorer, and increase the National Debt --as it has done, since, Reagan took office.
       The Tea Party—believes—the Republican BS: higher taxes--kills jobs. Their queen: Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the dumbest in the House. There is no way to cut spending by $1.1 trillion in 2012. That would be necessary without raising the cap; since, she is also against raising taxes.
    She voted No—on the deal. It is bad—but the alternative is worst. Not, raising the debt ceiling—if, it were valid. She thinks it is.
      Even, if it isn’t—and you think it is—and enough people believe that: it can cause serious financial damage.
       You cannot put a cap—on debt—i.e., refuse to pay for US debt. It violates the 14^th Amendment, Section 4.
      If, congress fails to take appropriate legislation action—that is malfeasance--a crime against the US government and people.
      The Social Security program—has a $2.6 trillion paid-in-surplus: you cannot legally stop payment of benefits—as Obama, Bernanke, Reid, and other idiots suggested, to frighten seniors.
        Look the US is not broke—unable to pay its debts: 11 million [about 3.5% of the population] own over $42 trillion in assets.
Back in 1961 the top 400 Americans had an average income of $13,679,000—by 2006: $236,300,000: 19.3 times more. In 1961—they paid an effective rate of 42.41%, in 2006: 17.7 percent:--a 60% drop in taxes.
      In light of these figures: the Republicans refusal to pass Obama’s seven reasonable tax proposals in the 2010 budget—is evil.
       Lawmakers, who say we should not pay our debts—or raise taxes on the richest Americans--should be rounded up and put in prison. Trial is not necessary: they signed the Norquist Devil’s pledge.
       Senators for 6 years, House members for 2 years, and the top leaders: Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Jon Kyl, and Mitch McConnell—should be lynched in the rotunda of the capital building--like the mob did to the Jesse West gang in Oklahoma [1909]-- that would purge the government of corrupt politicians.
       They did what the law failed to do.
        But, done--only—if the mob is treated like heroes and not criminals—as was the case in Oklahoma. That won’t happen--today.
    Corrupt politicians are protected by their government and laws—just like Ben Ali of Tunisia, Gadaffi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt, and Assad of Syria—until there is a popular uprising.
        Ben Ali fled—and was convicted in absentia.
    Gadaffi—like Republicans—is willing to destroy his country—than yield to what is right and fair—or majority will.
        August 3, Hosni Mubarak went on trial in a Cairo courtroom inside a cage, that is where George W. Bush belongs [on similar charges].
      He has done great harm to our economy.
                                                      UPDATE
         Protestors demand the execution of Assad.
       There is no way—to get over—this debt crisis—without raising taxes: the gap between revenues and expenditures is too great—to mend by spending cuts alone: that would require cuts of about $1 trillion every year which would wipe out every domestic program.
       So, you see: why Michele Bachmann—is not only stupid—but does not; remotely, have the qualifications to be the president.
       I think she hears the voice of Norquist.
       Republicans were willing to trigger a default—to protect their tax cuts on the rich. They are bad [evil] men. President Obama craved….
      He was outflanked by plutocrats.
       However, under the circumstances; since, he got the cap raised until the end of his 4 year term: he did the convenient, safe thing.
    Spending cuts are needed---but, what is needed more: increased revenues: let’s see what the bi-partisan committee of twelve does. Three Senate Republicans chosen by McConnell and three House Republicans chosen by Boehner: will most likely block any tax increases to balance the budget. Tax reform for republicans means: lowering taxes and paying for wars—by borrowing.
      Boehner said, “I got 98% of what I wanted.”
      The plutocracy won again…18 more months without tax increases on the wealthy —while the US debt soars.
      August 2, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on CNN and said, “It’s an extremely unfair piece of legislation. Look, the wealthiest people in this country are becoming much richer and in many cases paying a low effective tax rate. Corporations are making billions in profits and not paying in some cases a nickel in taxes. What this legislation does—is: does deficit reduction on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and some of the most venerable people in this country.”
    He is right.
   The debt-deal: Obama, Biden and the Democrats worked out—after months of negotiations with Republican terrorists:
                                       Is 10% good—90% a dud.
       August 5—S&P downgraded the US credit rating to AA+ saying, the recent plan worked out to raise the federal debt ceiling “fell short” of what’s needed to stabilize the nation’s longer-term finances.
      August 7, 2011—Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont appeared together on Face the Nation:
        Lindsey Graham blamed President Obama’s—leadership. That is no doubt, he made it clear: he wants a balanced approach. Trying to reason with republicans--is like, talking to a brick wall; as, long as they have power: they will say--No.
        Howard Dean said, “Well, look, I think this S&P downgrade is a good thing, because, it underlines the fact that you can’t get out of this without raising revenues. Sixty percent of the deficits is due to the Bush tax cuts. That's CBO saying that not me. You can not get out of this without raising revenues. It is impossible and the vast majority of the American people want us to raise revenues, particularly on all those gazillionaires the Republican tax cuts mostly benefited. So, let’s do the right thing. Let everybody put something in the pot.”
         He is right!

      Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell said on Face the Nation, July 31, the twelve member bi-partisan super committee—who would draw up a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion—would be “dead even.”
        Well—there are 6 democrats and 6 republicans—but, they are not dead even.
        The six selected republicans—all have signed the no-tax-increase pledge: 3 from the Senate and 3 from the House.
      The six democrats have not signed the Norquist pledge—nor have they signed a pledge—not to cut spending.
        It is not dead-even: it is a rigged jury. Plus, the two co-chairs: Erskine Bowles, a Wall Street milti-millionaire, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator that recently endorsed Mitt Rommey, are two of a kind.
       Back in 12/23/10, Political Ruminations called Mitch McConnell an “unmitigated liar”, saying on the Senate floor, he preaches “the GOP Gospel of lies.”
        That is what he done on Face the Nation.
         Bob Schieffer asked him: how the debt-deal talks were going and this was the crux of his answer: [we must] “to get the federal governments house in order by dealing with our biggest problem, which is we’ve been spending too much.”
        That is partly false; since, the Reagan and Bush taxes cuts, mostly on the wealthy, taxes have not produced sufficient revenues to pay for federal outlays; particularly, increased military spending, two wars, and interest on debt. Before Obama, three republican presidents and one democrat—made up part of the difference by raiding the Social Security Trust fund.
         Plus—the Bush induced bi-bubble burst recession.
         In fact, revenues as a percent of GDP are the lowest since 1950—and spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II.
        It is a double biggest problem.
        Schieffer asked: “Will they [the super committee] have the authority to consider revenues increases, as well as spending cuts?”
        McConnell, “Well, they are going to have a broad mandate to look across the federal government, including tax reform, which virtually every Republican thinks is a good idea.” But, there is a difference:
        Republicans want to cut spending....
        Democrats want to raise taxes….
        McConnell said to reduced the deficits; “We fully expect them to deal with entitlement reform.” He says, the trustees of Social Security and Medicare repeatedly said, including this year: “that both have a serious problem.”
        That is 50% false—50% true.
        Social Security has a $2.6 trillion paid-in-surplus [not a deficit] and can pay 100% of benefits until around 2036.
        The interest of the Trust Funds non-negotiated bonds or IOUs—earns about $120 billion a year. So, it is not in trouble.
    The problem—the government has spend that money in the Trust Fund for other government expenses; so, it a federal debt.
        Bush promised to put the paid-in-surplus in a lockbox back in 2,000—when, he campaigned for president, but instead: spent the money—to make up for the revenue loses caused by his tax cuts, mostly on the wealth-- and now: republicans refuse to raise taxes to make repayment.
        Here is the new problem, Obama has inherited the S.S. debt from the past four presidents: the paid-in surpluses—they used to operate their government. But, beginning in 2010, there has been a shortfall. That means: the IOUs will be cashed in to make up the difference between paid-in-payroll taxes and the payout of retirement benefits for senior citizens.
         The difference: the four previous presidents: Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. had a paid-in SS surplus to operate the federal government: Obama has a deficit: he must begin repaying the money that was borrowed--or purloined.
       Three republicans to one--democrat.
       When the federal government borrows money from foreign countries and investors: it gives them negotiable bond—US Treasuries--not senior citizens: it gave them non-negotiable: they can’t be cashed in.
        It has to raise taxes to cash them in--or as Republicans want: to cut benefits and/or cut other programs—or re-borrow the money—or raise the Social security payroll tax: making seniors pay double.
       That would be wrong.
       The right and fair way—raised taxes on those—whose pockets went most of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
      Plutocrats—don’t want their taxes raised—particularly, those that have signed the Norquist pledge--to pay for cashing in of the IOUs—to pay for Social Security benefits. The money—they previous borrowed—to pay for other government expenses, rather than raise taxes—or pay for their tax cuts.
        They want to reduce benefits-- first, and secondly, cut domestic spending to pay off the IOUs. There are lawmaking fraudsters.
        So, don’t be fooled: Social Security has a $2.6 trillion paid-in surplus: that was raided and went mostly, into the pockets of the rich—as Reagan and Bush tax cuts Therefore, they must pay most of it back—by means of income, dividend, capital gains and estate-gift tax increases. Republicans—who have signed the pledge—refuse. President Reagan did not lower taxes on the working man.
     He actually raised them.
        He reduced the top rate from 70% to 28%: and George W. Bush cut income, dividend, capital gains, and the estate taxes—heavily—weighted in favor of the wealthy. The top 1 percent—got 50% of the tax-savings.
     Medicare is a little different: Part A is funded until 2024—but, Part B and D are subsidized: these entitlements should be fully funded by a Medicare surtax—or benefits cut: So, they should be on the table—and tax increases—mostly, on the rich to pay back the money purloined from the S.S. Trust fund.
     So, Social Security is not a urgent problem—the interest on the S.S. non-negotiable bonds in the Trust Fund—will pay for the shortfall—for years to come until they exceed the interest on the debt—then, the short fall—or paid out benefits—in excess of the paid in payroll tax will be paid by the bonds in the trust fund until it is exhausted. So, it is not an immediate problem.
        I am speaking of for seniors. The long-term problem can easily be fixed: by increasing the retirement age—and/or raising the payroll-cap.
       The immediate problem: there is no money in the Trust Fund: to pay the short fall—the cashing in of IOUs.—to pay for benefits.
     That can be done—a number of ways: borrow the money and increase the debt—or raise taxes—or as the Republicans want to do: cut other domestic programs and used that money to pay the shortfall.
        The changes made in the Social Security payroll tax in 1983—generated a big surplus deposited in the Trust Fund, congress seen this money sitting there and said: let’s borrow it, to pay for other government expenses, so, we can cut taxes. That is fine; but, refusing to repay it—this is misappropriation.
    Reagan—did not cut taxes on working class. He clipped off the top nine marginal tax rates from 70% to 32%. They must repay the balk of the purloined money—as well as those, who reaped the benefit of the Bush: tax cuts on income, dividends, capital gains, and the gift-estate taxes
      The rich were also passing some of the Social Security paid-in-surplus received from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts-- to their siblings in the form of inter vivos tax free gifts—as well as, their bloated estates.
      The explosion in spending was military—not entitlements. Neither, Reagan or Bush raised taxes to pay for it.
      Some of that money came from the Social Security paid-in surplus: the rest was financed by deficit spending—selling US Treasures.
        So, Social Security does not have immediate problem—until the Trust Fund is substantially—depleted: the immediate problem: how to pay for the shortfall; since, there is no money in the Trust Fund.
       Workers have a paid-in-surplus—of $2.6 trillion
       The federal government has a $2.6 trillion debt.
        Most plutocrats—or republicans reject raising taxes to pay for it—the tab for 2010: $49 billion—and that will likely grow—yearly--until the trust fund is exhausted. Plutocrats—now--are refusing to raise taxes, on those who got the benefit of the tax cuts—to make good the IOUs. That is stealing.
        If, you watch the GOP presidential debate at Ames, Iowa, the candidates were asked: if, the debt-deal was $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts: would you support it? All eight said No.
        So, you know where they stand.
        McConnell said concerning the debt-deal: “We’re not talking about kicking the can down the road:” That is exactly what they are doing. The first wave of $1 trillion in deficit reduction does not include increasing taxes. The second wave of $1.5 in deficit reduction over ten years—makes only a small dent in the debt problem, projected to total $8 trillion [additional] by 2021. The debt-deal must include both spending cuts and revenue increases: to reduce and hopefully eradicate.
        The interest on the $2.6 trillion Trust Fund will pay for the shortfall for years to come: until the benefits—exceed the interest: then, the shortfall will begin to exhaust the $2.6 trillion Trust Fund.
        The problem: there is no money—just IOUs.
        The right way to do that --is raise taxes—on those who received the most benefits from the tax cuts. However, those that have signed the Norquist pledge—refuse to do so. They are corrupt politicians.
     That want to reduce benefits and cut domestic programs—to pay off this IOUs worth $2.6 trillion and the interest [cost].
        I am not denying: Social Security has a long-term problem: the number of workers will decrease--and the number of retirees will increase—in the future—plus: people are living longer. But, that is not a problem until the trust fund is substantial depleted: you want to reduce it, substantially, to save interest costs.
       You want the SS payroll-tax geared to stay ahead of benefit payments—so, you don’t fall behind, but--not create a too big of surplus.
       There is a danger—it might be purloined---not be repaid; like, the Republicans are trying to do--who have signed the Norquist pledge.
        McConnell said, “We’re not going to engage in job-killing tax increases.” But, are taxes job-killing: not necessarily. He could have said, I am not going to engage in job-creating taxes, taxes that pay for his salary, his family medical benefits, taxes that support the US government.
    “Taxes are at a 60 year low”—source: CBO.
        Demark has the highest tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP of any country of the world [49%] and an unemployment rate of 4%. Compare that to the US: its tax revenues as percentage of GDP is around 15% [2011]—and its unemployment rate is 9.1%. This proves, taxes do not necessarily kill jobs—it is only one of many factors effecting jobs—and most of all: the US has a big revenue problem caused by low taxes and a recession. Republicans claim low taxes grow the economy.
      Schieffer, feeling he got an evasive answer from McConnell—asked a second time: [if] “this committee in its wisdom decided to include some tax increases in that package, they have the authority to do that.”
        McConnell, “tax reform is something both Democrats and Republicans think is long over due.”
        But, there are deadlocked—as how.
     Since he did not get a clear answer, Schieffer ask McConnell for the third time: “But, they would have the authority to say eliminate a deduction on say people’s interest they pay on their mortgage.”
     McConnell, finally, tells the truth, saying, “The whole idea behind tax reform is to lower the rates and remove a lot of the preferences”
        Tax reform for republicans is eliminating deductions—in exchange--for lowering the tax rates, mostly, on the wealthy.
        Democrats—want to raise tax rates.
       That is not the case for the corporate tax rate.
        McConnell says, “our corporate tax rates is now about to be the highest in the world”: that is misleading—not the effective rate: seven out of eleven industrialized nations: Italy, Japan, Brazil, China, India, Canada, and Germany pay higher; only--France, the UK, and Russia pay lower. The gap between the statutory and the effective: corporate loopholes and tax breaks—that congress, mostly Republicans—refuse to close.
        S. 940 -- “Close big tax Loopholes Act of 2011 --lacked 60 votes in the affirmative to consider under the order of 5/16/2011. It does no explain what that means: it appears to be abandoned--or blocked, mostly, by republicans.
        Some profitable big corporations pay very low rates or zero in taxes. It is well documented—a fact.
McConnell says, [the high corporate rate] ‘makes us uncompetitive”. That is also mostly false. US corporations are at the bottom of a list of 30 OECD countries of taxes paid—as a percentage of GDP [2002].
        McConnell says, “We also need to have entitlements [referring to Social Security and Medicare] still there for our children and grandchildren.” Well, both the paid-in- surplus for Social Security and Medicare, Part A, have been purloined and the signers of the Norquist pledge, including McConnell, refuse to raise [their] taxes to pay it back—or replenish the two trust funds.
       McConnell is a liar and a thief.
       Schieffer: “I understand there’s also a provision in there that calls for a vote on the balanced budget amendment.”
       McConnell, “We hope it would pass.” I will tell why—so, they don’t have to pay higher taxes.
       The Balanced Budget Amendment –in the Debt-Deal is lopsided. It does not match revenues with spending—it is a cap on spending—as a percentage of GDP; if, it exceeds that level: cuts would be mandated.
       However, if, there is a revenue shortfall: it would take a two-thirds majority vote in both houses—to raise taxes. If, that vote failed: it would leave a deficit on the books. It is not correctly designed.
      There is nothing in this Debt-Deal—I am referring to the Budget Control Act passed by both Houses: to pay off the $14.3 trillion debt, presently, on the books owed, mostly by the wealthy—from under taxation.
      Interest on US debt—for 2011—will run over $450 billion—that will, likely, increase every year as the debt grows. The debt-deal will only make a small dent in deficit reduction, because, it does not include tax increases.
       It kicks the can down the road.
       According to Brice Bartlett in the Fiscal Times, [without tax increases] “we would have to eliminate every discretionary spending program to balance the budget”: that would include the Dept. of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Agriculture, EPA, and there still would be a huge deficit of over $500 billion in 2012.
        The Budget Control Act—only knocks off $21 billion.
      It is rigged, it is bad, is not balanced: it is designed to make spending cuts easy --and tax increases on the wealthy—hard.
       Here is the theme of the GOP Gospel of lies—three times: McConnell made this statement during the interview: “And were going to come together in the best interests of the American people and get this job done.” That is bullshit.
       Spending cuts only—is not what is best.
   McConnell lied, saying: “The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending”: he left they want higher taxes on the wealthy and the closing of corporate tax loopholes [included in debt reduction].
       He is an unmitigated liar-thief-conman.
       And the second bad part of this interview: the half-dead old man Bob Schieffer: let him get way with most of his bullshit—and lies.
      The bi-partisan committee has until Nov. 23—to make recommendations--and the Congress has until Dec. 23—to vote on it: up or down.

Posted 8/19/11 MY NEW BOOK: THE TAX GUARDIAN --- postings from my blog: 2/25/09 to 2/2/11 -- corrected, revised, and updated: now--available at iUniverse and other Internet retailers.

I sent the first copy of my new book: The Tax Guardian to President Obama, since he is the central figure, and I asked him if he had any comment or criticism? If and when he does, I will post it on my blog [here]:______________________________.

I sent the second copy of my new book: The Tax Guardian to Bill Gates—as I promised; so far, I have not received an answer to my letter: dated May 3, 2011. A copy of that can be found by scrolling down to the Four Billionaires Speak Out, posted 5/3/11---Bill Gates.

When, and if he responds—I will post it here:__He returned my second book: The Tax Guardian with a letter. I may comment on it later. I did: see my video on You Tube (part 1)__.

        I am sending you a copy of my new book: The Tax Guardian with this letter.
        If, you wish to response to my letter: dated May 3, 2011, I have a contact page at the end of my Internet Blog: you also have my email and mailing address.
        My purpose is clearly stated in my letter. I stated in first letter: I sold 2 books—that was an error: I have sold none. It is being suppressed by mainstream media.
    Is it in the best interest of the US to ignore these two books—or put it out, so the people can decide?
   You could make a difference. I have posted this letter on my blog; if, you answer, I will post it on my blog.
    I would be willing to discuss taxes with you—in a video—to be played on my website; but, it would require a contribution.
   The US and world tax guardian,
                              Walter F. Picca

         I sent the 3rd book to Ross Perot along with this letter:
                                               9/20/11
Dear Mr. Ross Perot,
        I sent you my book: Why the Reagan and Bush Tax-Cuts are Unfair—back in 2007: I wanted your comment. I did not get it!
        Therefore, I am sending you my new book: The Tax Guardian—posting from my blog: 2/25/09 to 2/2/11.
        I am prepared to make you an offer: I feel you were on the right tract back in 2003, when you ran for President.
        If, you would make a donation to my website: I would like to make a video—with you and me—that I can post on my website: I would like to see and review all your info-commercials on TV and comment on them (i.e., update what you said with today’s facts): I believe you were right! But, I would like to dip deeper and hear what is your solution to today’s US debt-crisis.
        What is your answer?
              The US and world tax guardian,
                         Walter F. Picca
PS -- Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com –for undated information on taxes and politics.
        If and when he answers: I will post it here_________________________.

                                                      9/21/11
Dear Mr. Warren Buffett,
       I sent you a letter and my book—“The Estate Tax and Politics back in 2007: requesting your review—because, you were a proponent. The fact, you did not answer: makes me doubtful.
      I sent you a letter back—in 2008—asking you to comment on my blog posting titled the “The Oracle of Omaha.”
      You did not answer.
      I sent you a copy third letter in 2010—asking you comment on my positing: Two Sages, where I criticized you for defending Abacus 2007 ACI—a synthetic $2 billion CDO marketed by Golden Sachs that defrauded investors.
       I should say: gamblers—not investors. The US congress made it legal to market fake bonds: that gamblers make bets on: that don’t create jobs—or things of value—a misuse of capital.
       Eventually, I was right: Golden Sacks paid a $550 million fine to settle the case. But, you have not done penitence. I asked you for a donation to my website: the Tax Guardian; but, you did not respond.
       I commend you for your op-ed article in the NYTimes: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, where you proposed higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends on millionaires and deco-millionaires.
       I totally agree.
      However, increasing taxes on only on the top—less than—1 percent: is not enough to solve the US debt-crisis. I believe the entire tax code must be restructured from bottom to top.
       Therefore, I sending you my new book: The Tax Guardian with this letter to read, so, that you can determine whether this information—should be read by voters.
       Recently, you gave $1.5 billion to the Bill and Belinda Gates Foundation—and nothing to my website—that would help make this information public—being suppressed by the mass media.
       My book: The Estate Tax and Politics published in 2006 has sold only 1 [4] copy [copies] to-date.
       My book: Why the Reagan and Bush Tax-cuts are Unfair including 2006 and 2007 updates—has sold only 3 [18] copies.
       My book: The Tax Guardian.Com, postings from my blog: from 1/22/08 to 1/31/09 published in 2009--has sold no copies.
         My book: The Tax Guardian, postings from blog: from 2/25/09 to 2/2/11-- published Aug. 4, 2011—has yet to sell any copies. Your contribution could make a difference. It depends on whether you think this information would be beneficial to voters and taxpayers.
      I also would like to make a video with you and me discussing tax reform, I could post on my website.
   I think the US and the world could benefit from it.
   What is your answer?
                     The US and world tax guardian,
                          Walter F. Picca
PS     Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com for updated information on taxes and politics.
     If and when he answers: I will post it here. On Oct. 29, I did get a letter, it says: "Your book was received and unfortunately Mr. Buffett cannot personally respond."                                           That is 4 strikes: that puts him in jepardy, unfortunately.

        I sent the 5^th book to Harvey Golub, former CEO of American Express, with this letter:
          9/22/11
Dear Mr. Harvey Golub,
I read your article: My Response to Buffett and Obama—printed by online: WSJ.com and you said, “On my current income this year, I expect to pay 80%-90% in federal income taxes, state income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state estate taxes. Isn’t that enough? Yes, that is enough—but, I doubt the figures. For one thing, you don’t pay estate taxes until you die.
       Are you planning on dying in 2011?
       Some things—you said: I agree with.
       If, you would make a contribution to my website—or blog—I would like to make a video with you and me—discussing or analyzing what you said; so, that I can post it on my blog: thetaxguardian: I think it would be beneficial to America.
      What is your answer?
       I am also sending you a copy of my book: The Tax Guardian—maybe, you can tell me—what you agree or disagree with.
                             The US and world tax guardian,
                                    Walter F. Picca
PS   Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com – for updated information on taxes and politics.
       If and when he answers: I will post it here_________________.

Dear Mr. Steve Forbes,
      You made a video of you--speaking to Dera Borchardt, a former employee of Bear Stearns, and you ridiculed: Warren Buffett for suggesting: the wealthy should pay higher taxes. What you said made her laugh: this was a rigged interview—she agreed with everything you said.
       I see it differently: you made a lot of misleading statements. If, you would make a contribution to my website—I would like make a video with you and me—analyzing what you said. This video—I would post on my website: thetaxguardian. com.
    I will point out—your distortions.
    I am sending you a copy of my book: The Tax Guardian with this letter. This would be an opportunity for you—to read it—and point out my distortions, if there are any.
       What is you answer?
     The US and world tax guardian,
                                           Walter F. Picca
PS    Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com for updated information on taxes and politics.
        If and when he answers: I will posit it here_____________________.

        I sent the 7^th book to Alan C. Greenberg along with this letter:                                                        9/22/11
Dear Mr. Alan C. Greenberg,
        You said on Fox News to Neil Cavuto, referring to Warren Buffett’s article: “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich” –“I could have written the whole op-ed piece, I’ve been saying for I can’t say how long, Neil, I think it is ridiculous, uh, when these people talk about, that you can’t raise taxes during a depression or recession, even among the rich, they are out of touch with reality. I meant, they really, think, that if you raise taxes on Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, they are going to fire people, that is ridiculous.”
   I think you are correct.
       Therefore, I am sending you my book: The Tax Guardian—to read. I would like your opinion.
       The problem: I have sold no copies. If, you think it would be beneficial for taxpayers to read this book: you could help.
       If, you would make a contribution to my website—and you can afford it, as the former CEO of Bear Stearns from 1985 to 2001: I would like to make a video of you and me discussing tax reform for my website.
        What is your answer?
    The US and world tax guardian,
                         Walter F. Picca
PS   Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com for more information on taxes and politics.          If and when he answers: I will posit it here___Sept. 29, 2011; I got an email from Laura Schreiner, Vice President, J.P. Morgan Securites: Please call Alan Greenberg -- I did. We had a very short conversation, he said he read part of my book and I asked: What do think? And said "the rich should pay more taxes". I asked, if he had read my blog? he said no. I said, Is that all you have to say? He said, yes and good bye._I sent an email reply: "you should read my blog--then make up your mind__.

        I sent the 8th book to Douglas Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar, along with this letter:
                                                            9/22/11
Dear Mr. Douglass Oberhelman,
       I am sending you my book: The Tax Guardian with this letter--for your review. I like what you said—to CBS’s Scott Pelley, when he asked: “What’s missing in Washington?”
    You said, “Honesty. I don’t believe that this situation about our budget is anything new. And it is beyond me that we can’t have an open, honest dialogue with our people about what it takes.”
        I would ask you this question: Are CEOs being honest? Have CEOs; mostly, contributed to lawmakers that give them and their corporations tax-breaks and oppose eliminating them?          If, you would make a contribution to my website: thetaxguardian, I would like to make a video with you and me that I can post on my website: I would like to have an open and honest dialogue with you.
      It depends on—whether you think the material in my book—is beneficial for US taxpayers to read—and if, not beneficial—tell me. I think this would help enlighten voters and taxpayers.
       What is your answer?
                             The US and world tax guardian,
                           Walter F. Picca
          PS -- Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com for more information on taxes and politics.
    If and when he answers: I will post it here____10/1/11, I received a letter from Mr. Douglass Oberhelman thanking me for my letter and book_____.

        I sent my 9^th book to Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, along with this letter.
                                                         9/22/11
Dear Mr. Howard Schultz,
      I heard you say to CBS’s Scott Pelley, “The life blood of the reelections of every one of your congressional leaders in Washington is about fundraising, and I want to cut that off until we see civility, until we have a long-term debt deal that we are proud of….”
       That requires—electing the right legislators—but, also public—or voter enlightenment.
     Therefore, I am sending you with this letter my latest book: The Tax Guardian to read. If, you believe it would be helpful in that respect—maybe, the money you withhold for politicians--you could contribute to my website or blog—if, you think it would help solve the debt-crisis.
       I also like to make a video with you and me discussing tax issues—that I could post on my website.
       I think voters would benefit.
       What is your answer?
                          The US and world tax guardian,
                                   Walter F. Picca
PS   Also check out my blog: thetaxguardian.com for updated information on taxes and politics.
       If and when he answers: I will post it here__He returned the envelope containing the book without opening it. I pasted on the cover of the Priority Mail jacket: FREE BOOK FROM THE TAX GUARDIAN. That is offensive to me.

Posted 8/26/11 Republican Rick Perry is a Loose Cannon and
a Phony Christian

      He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment—the income tax—the best and fairest form of government taxation. He claims to be a Christian but, this is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, he is a con man.
When Jesus came to Capernaum—why here: this was the home of Peter. Here the collectors of the Temple tax came—and asked Peter: “Does you master pay taxes?” He said, “Of course, he does.”
Remember: ancient Israel was a theocracy—the temple tax—would be the same as a federal or state secular government tax.
Peter went into the house—a symbol of the law—to talk to Jesus about it. He asked Peter, “Whom do kings on earth take their taxes or tariffs? From their own sons or from other people?”
Peter answered, “from other people.”
Different translations read:
1. from their own people—or against conquered foreigners
2. from their subjects or foreigners
3. from their own children or strangers
4. [from] the citizens of the country or the foreigners
But, this also means:
From Jews or Gentiles
From business men or employees
       From royalty or commoners
From Americans or Texans, etc.
Different translations of the tax:
Tribute, head tax, toll, assessments, etc.
Peter’s answer meant: he thought Jews should not pay taxes to Romans: the [foreign] kings of the earth—or he thought—taxes were discriminatory or unfair; because, the elite or rich did not pay taxes and the people did.
Jesus asked, “So [you think], their sons are free from being taxed.” To dispel this answer: that some should pay—and the chosen—should not. Jesus said, “go down to the shore [or lake] and throw in a line, and open the mouth of the first fish you catch. You will find a coin to cover the taxes for both of us; take it and pay them.”
Why, from the mouth of a fish—Peter was a fisherman by trade—or employment. The coin in the fish’s mouth, represents the tax on income from your trade or employment [you must pay to the government]. In fact—it comes first—not after you buy everything you want for yourself.
      So, Republican Rick Perry—is a phony Christian; that is, disagrees with the teachings of Jesus.
He says the American people make a mistake or “were snookered” when they amended the Constitution to authorize the income tax and he wants to repeal it. That makes him the Texas Anti-Christ.
He would destroy the main source of revenue of the federal government: he calls it “a great milestone on the road to serfdom.”
It is just the opposite: it funds all our great services and benefits of the federal government: education, healthcare, justice, homeland security, national defense, infrastructure building and repair, research, disease control, environmental protection, etc.
But, is it fair—No—not all pay their fair share—including workers, the middle class, and the rich.
They put themselves first….
Rick Perry calls it—“a great faucet of money” to exercise control over the states and the people. Rick, like the rich, does not need government social programs: education, healthcare, foodstamps, security—and doesn’t like paying for it—for others. In his book—“Fed Up” he wants to repeal the income tax.
One big reason: Texas is the highest producer of oil in the United States: he does not like paying federal taxes on that profit and income.
He believes it belongs solely for Texans.
In 2009, he signed the Grover Norquist pledge, which means he will oppose and veto any taxes increases on the wealthy—to pay off the $2.6 trillion purloined from the Social Security Trust Fund—or the cost of Bush’s two wars—or the National Debt--or to balance the budget: it must come from discretionary spending cuts; such as: Medicaid, education, health and human services, the Justice Dept. EPA, etc.
Do you want this plutocrat to be president? He is more dangerous than George W. Bush: hidden within his psyche: is Gaddafi.
He doubts Social Security and the minimum wage are constitutional: he will get a pension and healthcare benefits from the state of Texas—as a lawmaker and governor—mostly, paid by taxpayers.
He believes, if people or immigrants are willing to work for less than the minimum wage: that is the way the free market works.
He would also repeal the 17th Amendment: take control of the government from the people and put it in the hands of plutocrats.
He claims—the American people were in “a fit of populist rage”—when they enacted the 16th and 17th Amendment.
Last night, I heard on the 10 o’clock news: a Libyan rebel say that Gaddafi was “stupid and crazy.” That is the description of Rick Perry. Social Security is not unconstitutional. It is not a failure. It is not bankrupt. It is not an illegal Ponzi scheme. He said all these things. He is a Texas blowhard Christian fraud.

Posted 9/13/11          Tea Party Republican Presidential Debate Tidbit

      Mitt Romney on Social Security was right—and Rick Perry was wrong. What was disturbing: Perry made false statements and the audience applauded. That means: the Tea Party is a group of prejudice, emotional, and uninformed people.
      That is the bases—for Rick Perry’s—front running position—going into the debate: I expect him to crash and burn on the road.
      He can’t shed his “FED UP” character.
      You don’t want this chameleon half-wit to be in the White House. He is a George W. Bush—clone—but far worst.

Posted 10/3/11 Eli Broad, the Consummate Tax-Dodger

       The reason I say that: he is a CPA, smart, and the founder of two S&P 500 companies: KB Home Corp. and Sun America, an insurance company specializing in retirement annuities. He made a lot of money—and I am 90 percent sure: he paid very little in taxes.
       He admits -- the rich get tax breaks that are unfair and yet, he took full advantage of them.              For example, he engaged in what is called –a “no sale - sale”—back in 1986 to avoid paying $54 million capital gains tax.
       The capital gains tax is fair; because, the government contributes to wealth building: providing education, healthcare, infrastructure, home security, financial services, national defense, bailouts, disaster aid, subsidies, etc.
        Here is how he did it: he had $194 million in capital gains and wanted to generate cash for other purposes—without selling his Sun America stock, that would have trigger a $54 million capital gains tax. To dodge that tax: a Wall Street firm used his stock as collateral to create a note—of equal value—which was sold to an investor. It paid interest and would potentially, increase and decrease in value—equal to the stock. The proceeds of the note went to Eli Broad. Of course, there is a fee involved—no where near the amount of capital gains tax.
       At the end of the note term: Broad must repaid the loan with cash—or forfeit his stock. That way he raised $194 million—without paying the capital gains tax. If, he repaid the loan with cash, he gets the stock back.
        I call this: a disguised stock sell and repurchase scheme to avoid the capital gains tax—that gets an OK from the IRS.
        There are about a dozen of these techniques being used—to avoid the capital gains tax. The long-term goal: avoid the capital gains tax until death. Then, the full market value of assets can be transferred to heirs—only subject to the estate [or death] tax, which has a big exemption.
        However, there are also strategies to avoid and lessen the estate tax. In fact, Sun America markets such products.              .
       Some of the schemes are legal; because, congress has put them in the tax code—others are gaps in the law: like, a fence—that has breaks. Murder would not be a crime except for the law—even though wrong. Congress knows of these gaps—and tax-dodging strategies—but, refuse to block them.
        His net worth, as of September 2011, $6.3 billion—according Forbes—the 48^th richest American. He began with an investment of $25,000 in 1971—but, how much has he paid in capital gains tax— to date? I suspect zero—or very little.
      That is cheating the government.
        His big means of doing this: creating a Private Family Foundation. It is created to make contributions to charitable causes under management of family members, which generally are paid.
       That is good, the bad part—it is a quadruple tax dodge.
      #1. Appreciated publically traded stock or property donated to PFFs escapes the capital gains tax.
       #2. Cash gifts to PFFs are tax deductible up to 30% of AGI [20% for appreciated property]. If, the gift exceeds that amount: it may be carried forward for five years.
        #3. Earnings of the foundation are tax-free, which includes capital gains, interest, rent, royalties, and dividends.
        #4. Every dollar contributed to a FPP is one less dollar including in your estate and not subject to the estate [or death] tax.
       Conclusion: if, properly structured—Eli Broad; probably, can exclude part or all his net worth from capital gains and estate taxation—and get a sizeable reduction in his earned income tax liability.
      The Tax Reform Act of 1969—created the tax framework for the PFF. The number has tripled in the last 25 years. There are about 40,000 private foundations today—2/3rds family managed.
        If, this trend continue—it excludes a growing amount of earned income and capital gains from taxation.
       I believe -- it cheats the US government.
        Therefore, I propose these changes in the tax code:
             1. Long-term appreciated stock or property donated to private family foundations should not be tax deductible from earned income.
             2. income tax deductions for gifts to PFFs limited to 10%
             3. the five year carried forward rule: repealed.
             4   the earned income of PFFs taxed at 10%.
             5. The premise for 5: Because, an unlimited amount of capital gains from publically traded stock can be transferred to a family foundation—and by the way; improperly, deducted from up to 20% of earned income taxation at full fair market price -- and avoid capital gains tax. It is improper; because, long-term capital gains are in a different tax category than annual earned income. It should be-- if any--deducted from long-term capital gains with a deductibility cap.
       I would collect the capital gains tax—by one of two ways:
               a. require the donor to sell the stock—pay the capital gains tax—and donate the balance to the family foundation.
               b. require the foundation to sell the stock--pay the capital gains tax—and use the balance for investment [or distribution].
        I believe the federal government contributes to investment and earned income; therefore, deserves a share. It should come first. The government is the host—the PFF—is the parasite—and in most cases, more deserving than charities.
     These proposals—will limit the amount of income and capital gains going into these entities tax-free (undermining the federal government].
       Should—Eli Broad’s entire capital gains [or wealth]—be allowed to circumvent US taxation--and a big part of his earned income tax liability—be reduced by these capital gains donations to his family foundation?
      If, Eli Broad would make a contribution to my website: I will discuss this matter with him in a video—for public enlightenment.
       He can agree or disagree.
       He sold Sun America for $18 billion in 1999: his share: $2 billion; maybe, he will tell us how much he paid in capital gains tax.
                                       I am figuring: nothing.

       Alan Reynolds’ memo: Why 70% Tax Rates Won’t Work—published by online WSJ.com.
       He was responding to former Secretary of Labor and now Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich’s February blog proposal – “to raise the marginal tax rate to 70 percent on income over $15 million,” etc. It is similar to what I proposed in 2007-10.
      And, he justified it by stating: under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent [over $200,000]. And I might add: during his eight years in office—added only $23 billion to the national debt.
       Reynolds misquoted Reich--by stating the tax was on “the rich”—rather than “on income over $15 million.”
       That is an absolutely fair tax.
       Reynolds claims: the higher taxes of 70% to 91% after World War II to 1981 brought in less revenues; than, when Reagan slashed it to 28%. He ignored and failed to mention: this key part of the equation:
      That was given by Professor Reich: here it is. He said,
       In mid 1970s, the top 1% got 9 percent of income….
        In 2007, the top 1% got 23.5 percent: that means: the lower tax rate levied on double or triple the income can producing similar amounts of tax revenues—or even more, for example:
      70% tax rate x $10,000 = $7,000
       35% tax rate x $20,000 = $7,000
      So, looking back from 1981—the higher top tax rate levied on lower amounts of income: produced less tax revenues—compared to looking forward to the present: the lower top tax rate levied on higher amounts of income: produced equal or more tax revenues.
       However, there were other differences:
       Reagan made up for some of the difference for lowering the top tax rate—by eliminating and curtailing various tax deductions and eliminating tax shelters [or loopholes] of the top incomers. He also shifted the burden of taxation from the top to the bottom: by eliminating the $0 to $2300 for singles and $0 to $3400 for married filing jointly--tax free brackets, and in 1988 raised the bottom rate from 11% to 15%.
      What Reynolds also failed to mention:
      The lowering of the top rate from 70% to 50% to 38.5% to 28% by Reagan: produced big FY deficits. During his eight years in office: added $1.5 trillion to the National Debt—far more than all presidents that preceded him.
       The 28% top income tax rate—did not produce enough revenues when George Bush became President. The national deficit for 1991 climbed to $432 billion. Despite, his statement: “read my lips: no new taxes”: he added the 31% tax rate.
       The 31% marginal income tax rate did not produce enough revenues when Bill Clinton became President: he added the 36% and 39.6% tax rates.
      By 2000—it reduced the FY deficit to $17 billion.
      The higher Clinton income tax rates in 2000—produced revenues that were 10.2% of GDP.
       The lower George W. Bush income tax rates in 2010—produced revenues that were 6.2% of GDP. The big difference; like Reagan, Bush added a massive amount of debt to the federal government.
      Reagan and Bush made the same mistake: increased military spending, cut taxes, and created big deficits. Revenues as a percentage of GDP is only one measurement: equally important: debt ratio to GDP.
     So, Mr. Reynolds argument is mostly invalid: lower income tax rates do not produce higher government revenues—as a rule. You have to look at all the background—variants: changes in tax deductions, brackets, changes in pre-tax income at different income levels, the ups and downs of the stock market, simultaneous changes in corporate taxation and business incentives, fiscal year deficits or surpluses, whether the cut in the income tax took place when it was too high or too low, etc. Actually, the 1981 tax rates weren’t too high—the brackets were too low. Reagan should have kept the tax rates in place and expanded the brackets. His income tax was one tax rate—short of being a flat tax. Joint filers making over $29,750 paid the same rate as those making over $200,000, $1 million, or $10 million. That is not a progressive [or fair] income tax.
      The biggest thing Reynolds failed to mention:
     The high income tax rates after World War II to 1981 reduced the nation’s debt ratio to GDP from 120% to 33%. After 1981, the reduction of the Reagan and Bush income marginal tax rates raised the nation’s debt ratio to GDP from 33% to 97.9% by July 5, 2011—and will continue to shoot up. Until, there is tax reform.
      The Fairness in Taxation Act of 2011—introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowky (D-IL), a member of President Obama’s 18-member Fiscal Commission, in March. That is a good place to start.
      If, enacted it would generate over $78 billion in 2011: the problem—that is not enough—considering the projected deficit of $1.5 trillion.
       Professor Reich said at the CA democratic convention if, we went back to the tax rates we had 30 years ago: it would generate $350 billion in tax revenues from the top 1 percent. Therefore, I believe, the three marginal tax rates: 50%, 60%, and 70 % proposed by Professor Reich: would be the best plan to reverse the debt ratio to GDP expansion. It is a fair tax, the top 1 percent has been under taxed for 30 years.
       I would go one step further and overhaul the tax code from top to bottom and restore progressivity to the income and estate [or inheritance] tax and eliminate corporate loopholes and tax havens.
      The present growing $14.4 trillion US debt, is not so much caused by social programs—or entitlements: it is mostly the accumulation of debt—and the cost of interest on debt-- for not raising taxes to fund Reagan’s military buildup in an arms race with USSR and Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the war on terrorism. Republicans authorized these expenditures—and refuses to pay for them. Republicans are no different than the Gaddafi regime—refusing to yield to what is right and fair. According to a WSJ, March, 2011 poll: 81% of Americans favor a surtax on income for those making more than $1 million a year.
      Yet, they adamantly refused to do so. In fact, most republicans in the House have taken a no-tax-increase-pledge. The purpose—not to protect you, the majority, but the rich. They refuse to give up their Reagan and Bush tax cuts that to a large degree got us into crushing Debt.
       Professor Reich explains the truth about the economy by what he calls--connecting the dots:
       #1. Since, 1980, median wage has been flat, even though, the economy has doubled. Where did all the money go?
       #2. He says, in the mid-70s, 9 percent of total income went to the top 1 percent: in 2007: 23.5%.
       #3.   All this money going to the top—gave the rich the political power--to lower their income, capital gains, and estate taxes.
       #4.   That created huge deficits….and to solve that problem: they want to cut education, healthcare, welfare for the poor, etc.
       #5.   The baulk of voters is divided [i.e., unable to unseat the Republican Plutocracy: the rule of the rich].
       #6.   Anemic recovery: too much money in the hands of a few. That is the same problem of the Great Depression. Workers had no money to spend. We are back to where we were in the 1930s: 40% of wealth is in the hands of 1 percent.
       Here are the latest figures: the wages of the average worker increased: one/half percent in 2010: CEOs—increased 23 percent to $10.4 million: the top CEO: $84.5 million: And, since 1980, their taxes have been cut in half.
      The truth of the matter: Republicans—don’t represent the majority of people: they represent the super-wealthy.
       They argue falsely: taxing the rich will slow the economy and kill jobs. Professor Reich calls: trickle down economics—“a big fat lie”
       That is where we stand today; since, the plutocracy controls the congress: they refuse to raise taxes on the rich. The same class warfare is being played out in Libya, Syria, Egypt and other countries.
      Gaddafi would prefer to see his country destroyed—rather than give up power: Republicans would prefer the US default on its debt—than raise taxes on the richest Americans.
      In 2007, when Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review asked Senator McCain: are there any circumstances under which you would accept a tax increase, he said: “No. None.” That, basically, is the GOP position—today.
    Would online WSJ.com—publish my refutation of Alan Reynolds’ memo: No.
     Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute—a plutocratic think tank. It is dedicated to abolishing the “Death Tax” and is a proponent of the flat income tax.
     Not what is good for America.

I am referring to the Senate Finance Committee grilling of the five big oil company executives. It was a farce. President Obama has called for ending big oil subsidies or tax breaks, since entering office in 2009, but his tax proposals has met insurmountable obstacles in congress.

The five big oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP of American had a combine profit of over $76 billion in 2010--and $36 billion in the first quarter of 2011 [up 42% from the previous year], and refuse to give up their taxpayer handouts—or subsidies. These are some of the most galling in the tax code and the Senate has not the intestinal fortitude to end them.

Industry wide, it would save the federal government $44 billion—over ten years. It is galling; because, big oil has reaped big profits and paid very little federal income [or profit] taxes.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), co-sponsor of bill S 940 -- Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act-- is a smaller version: limited to removal of tax breaks on the big five. That would reduce the deficit $21 billion over the next decade. He said: “that even the most rich and powerful among us must do their fair share to help us reduce the deficit” However, I am in favor of the bigger version.

He said the plan we are talking about here today: “Is to raise taxes”: that is a distortion: it is a bill to close tax subsidies for highly profitable oil and gas companies —to reduce US government deficits.

He said, President Obama has no solution (i.e., for higher gas prices): that is also, mostly, false. S 940 -- Sec. 3, (1) states: “The President and administration”----‘’actions to help reduce gas prices”:-- and list seven: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G). He should read it. He is either a prevaricator or misinformed.

He voted for all the Bush tax cuts—including the extension of the dividend and capital gains tax cut during two wars, the repeal of the estate [or inheritance] tax, the Domestic Manufacturing Deduction Bill [2004], that allows oil and gas companies to deduct 6% of their profits from taxation—and the Republican—drafted 2005 Energy Bill, containing numerous oil and gas subsidies. If, he were a politician in Egypt, he would have supported Hosni Mubarak or Gaddafi in Libya, or Bashar al-Assad in Syria: they represent the dictatorship of the wealthy

That is what we have in America. The Senate has not passed a single Obama budget tax proposal on the rich. Despite the federal government’s—staggering debt of $14.3 trillion that is growing by $4.1 billion a day.

They want to balance the budget by cutting education, environmental protection, student aid, food aid for poor pregnant women and children, Medicaid, cancer research, etc. These are put on the chopping block, rather than unwarranted oil and gas subsidies. The big cause of deficits: not raising taxes to pay for increased worldwide military expenditures and increased national security costs, such as: protecting oil tankers from pirates and terrorists.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, “we believe {i.e., democrats), we need to cut government spending” and added: “the place to start is with these subsidies (or tax-breaks).”

The recent rise in the cost of gasoline is, mostly, caused by turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East--or the perceived possible interruption of oil supply--and speculation in oil futures, 70% by non-users, driving up the cost of a barrel of oil. This spike in the barrel of oil—has resulted in record profit for oil companies. This bill—does contain a provision to investigate and solve that problem.

The argument used by John Watson, CEO of Chevron, that if, their taxes are increased: it will undercut job creation and economic growth—is the same old scare tactics used by millionaires and billionaires.

That is a phony argument. Low taxes for the last 30 years, has contributed to high government debt, a recession, and high unemployment. Not only, has the top individual income tax rate been cut in half—but, corporate taxes paid as a percent of federal revenues have fallen from 27.3% in 1955—to 8.9% today.

The grilling of Oil executives was a farce; because, Senators failed to ask the right questions. For example, the chart displayed at the hearing showed that between 2006 and 2010:

But, the Senate failed to ask: How much of that was paid in federal income [or profit] tax? John Watson, CEO of Chevron, said: “the oil and gas industry pays its fair share in taxes.” Yes, to foreign countries, where oil is extracted, because, they are not allowed to get away with these shenanigans—that exist in the US tax code, but not—to the US government.

One reason: these oil companies pay low or no tax: tax havens. That did not come up at the hearing. US oil and gas companies have at least 882 subsidiaries located in oil-free tax havens. Exxon-Mobil and Conoco-Phillips are high on the list of corporate tax dodgers. However, S 940—the bill in question--did not include a provision to eliminate these tax loopholes. That bill passed the House in 2010…the Senate has taken no action…Republicans stand in the way.

(a) Oil royalties paid to foreign countries—often—are treated as taxes paid: they are not. They are company expenses. There is a difference. It gives the appearance of having paid—a higher tax rate—than is real.

(b) Oil royalties paid to foreign companies are often treated as tax credits or deducted from US taxes. That is an improper tax credit. They should be treated as company expenses—instead.

I found the testimony of the oil executives deceitful and un-American: claiming these tax proposals are unwarranted and unfair, would cost the nation jobs, result in more imported product, and undermine U.S. competitiveness. These are false. It might lower profits—slightly.

Subsidies are to help struggling companies to become profitable—the same as welfare for the poor: that can’t make on their own. You don’t give subsidies to companies that are highly profitable; like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, etc. That is like giving welfare to millionaires.

One in particular—Title II, Sec 201--Repeal of outer Continent Shelf deep water and deep gas royalty relief: meaning no royalty paid on this oil and gas extraction. That is a mistake: premature [or hurried up] exploitation.

John Watson, CEO of Chevron—stated: “I don’t think American people want shared sacrifice. I think they want shared prosperity.” The truth of the matter: both are necessary. Not paying enough taxes [sacrifice]—has created a false prosperity—that resulted in the rapidly growing Big National Debt.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-West Va., told the oil executives: they are “out of touch” [with realty] and “deeply and profoundly committed to sharing nothing.” He is correct. People expect big oil to pay their fair share—but, they don’t. Not to the US Treasury. This bill—has little or no effect on gas prices.

▬ Exxon Phillips CEO Rex Tillerson—said: ending these tax breaks for the big 5: “would generate far less government revenues”. That is a big lie: his plan--give the oil companies a free hand to exploit our natural oil resources would produce increased revenues, temporarily, but, once exhausted: zero.

S 940 – Sec 3, (2), (B)--does contain a provision to use savings from the repeal of these big oil tax-breaks to promote development and deployment of affordable alternative fuels and vehicles. That would increase employment in other industries, lower dependency on imported oil, lower gas prices, and reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. That is a good thing.

What he said, is like saying: it is wrong to increase taxes on the richest Americans to provide public education, welfare to the poor, communities services, etc. The natural resources of the United States belongs to the people—not to the oil companies. It is not wrong to transfer some of the profits from oil exploitation to promote alternative energies—before it is all gone. He is wrong.

James Mulva, CEO of Conoco Phillips, refused to apologize for releasing a statement: calling the Senate tax proposal “un-American”. The truth of the matter: they don’t pay enough to the US government based on the facts, I have seen. Threatening to take your business elsewhere, as Mulva did, if, congress raises their taxes: I call un-American. He said at the hearing: “There is a great deal of misinformation about our tax liability”: I agree--and he added to it, saying: “our company, we earned $11.5 billion last year, and we paid, $8.3 billion in taxes.” What he failed to mention: how much in foreign taxes—and how much in US taxes--and how much of the $8.3 billion were profit taxes and much were royalties.

The Senate also failed to ask these executives how many subsidiaries each company have domiciled in tax havens: for the purpose of US tax avoidance. I cannot find the number on the Internet—except for Exxon Mobil—it has 20 located in the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Cayman Islands.

A recent study by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, found that the five oil drilling companies that had undergone these “corporate inversions [i.e., opened an office in low-taxed countries] had save themselves a total of $4 billion in taxes since 1999.

We live in a plutocracy—a nation ruled by the rich: all of Obama’s budget tax proposals or increases on the rich have been rejected. The bill passed by a majority vote; but, because it requires 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster: it failed to pass.

This rule—that allows the minority to rule the majority—if, the senate cannot get rid of it: the Supreme Court should step in—to declare it unconstitutional. Also, if, we want a true democracy—it is necessary to dissolve the Senate. It makes it possible for a cabal of 41 senators to block bills.

Most republicans and oil executives are no different than the regime of Mubarak, Gaddafi, or Bashar al-Assad: they are greedy, combative, and will yield on nothing, while they have the power to rule.

The US government and taxpayers are being ripped off—six ways: by big oil corporations dodging taxes on profits, gouging at the pump, by excessive executives compensation, by their numerous tax cuts and breaks, using subsidy money to buy influence over congress, and by these big oil tax breaks or subsidies—ending up in the pockets of corporate executives.

Rex Tillerson, CEO Exxon Mobil, $21.5 billion [down 1% due a drop in value of stock awards—but, received a 40% increase in bonus]. Ex-chairman, Lee Raymond, received a pay check of $51.1 million in 2005, and a $450 million retirement package. That is clearly excessive.

James Mulva, CEO of Conoco Phillips, received a salary of $1.5 million: that is subject to the top income tax of 35% percent [after all tax credits and deductions] and a performance bonus of $4.3 million. But, he took most of his compensation in other forms:

He got an additional $294,000 in perks: including personal use of company cars and aircraft, life insurance premiums, and medical service. These perks; mostly, if not all: tax free.

Mark Haines of CNBC’s—show: Squawk on the Street—asked the Treasury Department—how much these big oil companies received in tax breaks, he said: they will not disclose that information.

                  HANDOUTS                                OVER FIVE YEAR PERIOD
                    Tax breaks                                            $23.5 billion
                    Royalty relief                                         $3.8   billion
                    Research and development subsidies        $1.6   billion
                    Accounting gimmicks                              $4.3   billion
                                                               TOTAL    $32.9 BILLION

So, you can see: S 940 – Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act—as feeble as it was—could not get passage in the Senate—and even, more unlikely to pass the House—controlled by Republicans.

You can squawk—all you want—but, Republicans in congress are hell bent on not raising taxes [on corporations or the wealthy]. It requires an informed electorate to change that. That is not possible, when, corporations own the Mass Media.

On cable: MSNBC—Rachel Maddow—made an effective rebutted to Rex Tillerson’s claim: ending the tax subsidies would result in a loss of jobs. She showed figures: where Exxon Mobil profit increased every year from 2005 thru 2008--and every year there was a job loss. He is a con-man.

It takes a number of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget—but Republicans—oppose all tax increases on the rich and corporation, the most able to pay and those that benefit the most from US productivity.

I feel—the oil executives’ reaction—to ending [or modifying] these subsidies would be catastrophic: result in higher cost, less incentive, more imported oil, fever jobs, less drilling, higher gas prices, less government revenues, lower dividends, etc.--overreacted. Website: Political Ruminations calls them: Greedy Bastards. The oil tax breaks enacted in 1916 were to help oil production—when, it was in its infancy: but, you don’t give a bottle of milk—to adults.

The five biggest oil companies have made a profit of over $1 trillion over the last decade: 18% went to exploration, 60% to dividends and stock repurchases, and 4.4 % to the US treasury. That is under taxation.

Exxon Mobil CEO Max Tillerson said—“You give me a different tax burden, I’m going to take my capital then, since the U.S. isn’t attractive, I’ve got to go somewhere else.” It appears, by the fact, his company paid $45.2 billion in taxes in 2009 and zero to Uncle Sam: their taxes [and royalties] are higher there--than in the US—and they don’t protect their oil tankers on the high seas—and provide infrastructure and security for their refining and marketing operations [gas stations]—here in the US. For that statement: I would give this Son of Bitch 2 extra years hard labor and make him repay 60 percent of his compensation, since 2004,: that is how much he overcharged shareholders and make him pay back taxes at the rate—they were, before Reagan took office: the top marginal rate 70% [dividends included].

And those Senators that voted against the bill—they need a whipping at the polls. Too bad: pillorying is no longer legal [A good place would be in front of the capital building].

Posted 5/3/11       Four Billionaires Speak Out…
                                                 ☻   Bill Cross
                                                   ☻ Warren Buffett
                                                             ☻   Donald Trump
                                               ☻   Bill Gates

      Bill Cross, PIMCO co-founder, says, U.S. living standards doomed to fall; if, we—keep spending and do nothing. And gives the solution: “balance our budget by cutting entitlements.”
      Meanwhile, he says, neither side has gotten serious about entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare which accounts for more than a third of Uncle Sam’s budget.
     There is a sliver of truth to this; but, this solution: bias and mostly, incorrect--the voice of a plutocrat.
      Social Security has a $2.6 trillion paid-in surplus and can pay 100% of benefits until the year 2037—If, you count the interest owed on the borrowed money—and 75% of the benefits to 2075.      This debt was created—by borrowing the paid-in-surplus—to make of the loss of revenue by tax cuts on the rich.
     Here is the problem: 4 U.S. presidents: Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.--siphoned off $2.5 trillion of the paid-in-surplus for other government expenditure and now, the annual interest on this debt: $118 billion for 2010. That interest will paid the yearly paid-in-deficits—for many years to come. The problem: the rich don’t want to pay that interest and debt off: they want to privatize Social Security. Of, $2.5 trillion owed the S.S. Trust fund, $1.352 trillion was looted by George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009: 50% of that money went into the pockets of millionaires—or the top 1 percent—in the form of tax cuts on income, dividends, capital gains, and the estate-gift tax. He deceived the people into thinking his cut cuts--expanded the economy, reduced budget deficits, and created jobs—while he spend the S.S. paid-in-surplus quietly off budget. The top 1 percent, since they received the biggest share of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the last 30 years, they needs to pay back this money looted from the Social Security Trust Fund
     Medicare HI part A—also has a surplus: the US government does subsidize B and D—but, these are not the cause of the present enormous $14.2 trillion National Debt.
      Another big cause of the National Debt: the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and now the Libyan war: no taxes have been raised to pay for them. Military expenditures worldwide in 2010: $1.5 trillion: the budget for the Military: $708 billion, that is a $792 billion deficit. The Republican Party stands in the way, they refuse to enact a war surtax—or raise taxes on the wealthy. They have the guts to send 5,554 Americans to death, 35,302 seriously injured, and over 1,000 amputees fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq—but, they don’t have the guts to enact a war surtax—or pay for the war; instead, they gave themselves—the rich and super-rich a tax cut.
     General Wesley Cark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and presidential hopeful, said, “If it weren’t for the law, you’d call that theft.” He was referring to the Bush tax cuts. It is legalizing stealing during war.
     They should be tried as war tax-deserters—and if, found guilty, executed. I am referring to George W. Bush, the architect of this crime, his cabinet—and some members of congress. While, men and women in uniform are being mutilated and killed abroad, back home: billionaires, like Donald Trump, occupied the top three floors of the Trump Towers, lives in luxury, travels in a private jet, and has several other multi-millionaire estates—and pays very little in income (or profit) taxes. The reason: we don’t have a war surtax, the first time in US history—is because: we live in a plutocracy--a nation ruled by the affluent. They have the power to send men to war—to protect their wealth—and give themselves a tax break—at the same time. That is despicable. They deserve the death penalty. But, they are protected by the law. And the second obstacle: this statement made by Barack Obama back in September 2008, “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” This got him elected—the same as Bush--the voters were duped. These two reasons, plus the voters—that want free government benefits--is why we are looking at a $1.6 trillion deficit for 2011--$688 billion more than he predicted in 2009. We are now sailing off course into a super-big debt trap, because congress cut taxes, mostly on the rich, refuses to raise taxes, and doles out more freebies. Bush and Obama are the two opposite ends of political spectrum: one represents the rich—the other represents the have-nots.
     Nobody—represents the nation on the verge of insolvency. Now, congress is facing the need to raise the debt limit again. The position of the GOP—it will agree only if, cuts in spending: education, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid are agreed upon: the other half of the equation: the need to raise taxes on most able to pay, those that reap the biggest share of the nation’s productivity, and the fact the top marginal tax rates at near the lowest level, since the Great Depression: that is off the table.
     These two forces: those that want free education, food stamps, healthcare, national security, and pay no tax—and the wealthiest Americans that abhor paying taxes; like Donald Trump—have put this nation deeply in debt and endanger of bankruptcy.
      The problem is not these programs—so, much—as the unwillingness of the super-rich and corporations to support the nation’s mission as defender of human rights around the world.
     They support the war—not the war surtax. The execution of a couple dozen top US politicians and put a couple hundred in prison and seize their assets for back taxes—would straighten this country out. Of course, that is not legal--they are protected by their laws.
      Standing behind this brick wall: the GOP—proposes to lower —even more—the corporation and top income tax.
     Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, was once asked at a Q&A [session] at Cap Cities, how he would rewrite the tax code: “If I really could do it, it would shock you,” he said. He’d tax the hell out of personal consumption – at progressively higher rates – and impose an “enormous” inheritance tax. He is right: there should be an enormous inheritance tax; but, the progressive consumption tax—is not near as good, practical, and as fair as the progressive income tax. He is only partially correct--some types of progressive consumption taxation might be good—like, water, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, etc. -- to conserve when supply is low—or prevent wasteful consumption, but, it no replacement for the progressive tax on individual income.
     And, the third tax—he overlooked: make corporations pay there fair share: Berkshire Hathaway paid 29% in 2010: that is fair; but, very few paid that much. Two-thirds paid zero. So, Warren Buffett, is right on one tax: the inheritance tax. In other places: he says the income tax is not fair: he is right in two places.
    Thirdly, most corporations need to contribute more.
     Donald Trump, real estate tycoon and reality TV Host, discussing his potential run for the presidency with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was, as usual, overbearing. George kept his cool—and was more rational. Donald Trump’s postulations turned out wrong.
     When asked, if he still favors: his tax on net worth of 14.25% over $10 million—to pay off the National Debt: he flipped-flopped: now that he is considering a run for the US president: he said: it no longer possible.
    Even though, it is a fair tax—and more justified now: the rich and super rich, like himself, owe even more back taxes—albeit, the likelihood of it being enacted by congress—right now--zero. I believe, the best way to collect these back taxes owed by rich and super rich is a heavy estate [death] tax; but, besides this: Trump is not qualified to be president: he has four business bankruptcies: he does not have time to be president and running his real estate empire, etc., and —he is a huckster.
He has two ventures, bearing his name, where investors lost money:
     1. The plan to build the tallest Building in Tampa Florida—that went bankrupt.
      2. The Trump Ocean Resort Baja California that was never built—that people bought condos in.
     He emerged from his four bankruptcies: 1991,1992, 2004, and 2009 fairly well—not investors who bought shares in Trump Hotels and Casinos —that went public in 1995 with an offering of 10 million at $14 –and second in 1996 -- 13.25 million at $32.25. By mid-2004, it fell to $2.50 a share and by Feb. 2009, it was being traded over the counter for 23 cents. That could happen to the US—if Trump became president.
   Here is why! He said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “Today, I am very strongly against tax increases.” He could not be more wrong—raising taxes on the rich, which have been under taxed since 1981—is an necessity, we if want to lower the budget deficits.
     This statement puts in agreement with the Republican Party and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, he called any debt reduction plan that includes tax increases “unacceptable” and a “non-starter”.
     That puts him in opposition to the majority of people--a new Washington Post/ABC poll, showing: 72 percent said, they favor raising taxes on the wealthy to balance the budget.
    When George Stephanopoulos asked him, if he would make his tax returns public: he said, “Maybe, I’ll going to do the tax returns, when Obama does his birth certificate.” The answer is NO.
     I want to see them--to prove a point. Forbes puts his net worth at $2.7 billion; but, how much did he pay in individual and corporate income taxes? I am betting--very little. According to Richard D. Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst from 1973 to 2008, in an article published in Truthout and The Guardian, titled: “How the Rich Soaked the Rest of Us.” --he said, “over the last half-century the richest Americans have shifted the burden of the Federal income tax off themselves and onto every body else.
      I agree 100 percent.
     He presented three Wikipedia graphs to back up his statements: they show in detail:
      1. The highest income earners paid a top tax rate of 90% for many years and then, reduced in steps to 35%, where it is today--while the tax rate on the lowest incomers—remained constant.
     2. As the highest income tax rate declined from 1979 to 2005: the income of the bottom fifth barely rose, meanwhile, the pretax income of top 1 percent of households rose by 175 percent.
     He says these charts show, “we have now returned to the extreme inequality of income that characterized the US a century ago.” Yes, they do very clearly.
     This wealth, he says: enabled the rich to influence politics and win more tax cuts. That is true. The Bush tax cuts added to the Reagan: EGTTRA (2001), JGTRRA (2003), TRERA (2005), Tax Relief Act of 2010, etc.
      He says, the rich claim: they use this tax money saved from tax cuts to create jobs—as Bush did.
      But, do they?
      He says, instead—they lend this money to the US government in the form of buying US Treasuries. The government needed to borrow the money to pay for the deficits created by the tax cuts. He says it would be better to tax the rich—to pay for government expenditures—than to cut their taxes—and borrow the money back and pay them interest.
    He said, they also invest their money in China, India, and elsewhere. For example: GE cut its US workforce by 20% since 2002. It also helped rewrite the corporate tax code.
     He said, they also invest in Hedge Funds, speculate in oil and food, and buy stocks.
    Hedge Funds do not create jobs or tangible goods, they skims profits off the real economy.
      And, he says: that mostly helps—you guessed it—the richest Americans.
     Let me explain: they make money by betting on price changes—up or down—in options, futures, stocks, bonds, indexes, currencies, and arbitrage. They are today’s money changers.
      In other words: instead of investing in the real economy—they invest in derivatives to make money. Today, the derivative market has become 8 times bigger than the real economy.
      Hedge Funds have become a rapidly growing giant Parasite: using exclusive information, market expertise, and computer programs—to profit from price fluctuations—not job creation.
     He says, “In simplest terms, the richest Americans have done by far the best over the last 30 years; they are more able to pay taxes today than they have been in many decades, and they are more able to pay than other Americans by a far wider margin. At a time of national economic crisis, especially, they can and should contribute far more in taxes.
     I whole heartedly agree---here we are on the same page—independently —or he has read my blog.
     Professor Wolff—also said: high debt from under taxation [or borrowing] has hobbled the government: I agree. It restricts what it can do—and weakens its ability to weather future storms.
    Donald Trump challenged Obama to reveal his birth certificate; now, that he has, he should reveal his tax returns. I suspect: very little income taxes paid. He would not make a good president, not only because he is a bias hog, but, because he is against raising taxes on the richest Americans. He supported Senator McCain in the last election--who believes the Bush tax cuts, mostly on the rich, should be made permanent—and he also supported Tom DeLay (R-Tx) –now in prison and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga)—Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, who opposed the Bush Sr. and Clinton tax increases: he wants to adopt a single tax rate for workers and millionaires and repeal the capital gains tax, which shows Trump has bad judgment—and he believes that if, gas prices continue to go up—it would cause a double-dip recession—and to solve the problem, he said on FBN: “I would go into Libya and take the oil.” He is a dangerous, bull-headed, plutocrat and not qualified to be president.
      He said, we can’t afford Obamacare—well, we could afford a national healthcare program—if, we could eliminate interest on the national debt--$413,394,825,362 for 2010—about 47% going to foreign investors and governments.
      Donald Trump said in his book published in 2000: taxes on are too high—and the heritance tax is a lousy tax. They are the typical sentiments of republican plutocrats—like Bush and Gingrich.
     I might add: Tom DeLay, supported all the Bush tax cuts—and even, went further: he wanted to abolish--the IRS—replace the income tax with a national sales tax: he is where he should be—in prison. He is a bigger danger to society than bin Laden.
      Trump also supported Senator George Allen (R-Va): he voted for all the Bush tax cuts. So, don’t let Trump deceive you—because, he donated $700 to Hilary Clinton: he is combover republican on taxes; therefore, you would not want him to president unless you’re in the top .001%--and then, that would be an American disaster.
      Republican plutocrats like big profits and low [or no] taxes. Bush, Tom Delay, Trump, Allen and Gingrich—hate the death tax. They don’t believe in sharing with their “Silent Partners" and believe in an America rule by the rich.
      In politics—Trump is a meteorite that his going to burn out soon. In an article in the Los Angeles Times by Donald D. White, 4/29/11—Big Oil Firms Profit on Slim Output, he writes:
      “Despite increasing demand, refiners are producing less gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than usual for this time of year. They’re also exporting more to foreign countries.”
      The reason he states: “Refiners are exporting large amounts of gasoline and diesel to foreign buyers willing to pay a premium.”
      Donald Trump is accusing the Saudis of doing the same thing--the US firms are doing. So, he is not so-bright.
      There are four causes of high gas-prices:
      1. the turmoil in the Middle East
      2. the weak US dollar
      3. speculation in oil futures
      4. the need to import—because—we consume [or waste] so much.
      That does not give Donald Trump the right to invade Libya and steal their oil. He is a dangerous, wrong-headed, blowhard—on par with the WWE pro-heavyweight wrestling champion.
      He said at the Treasure Island Casino in Las Vegas, “You’re not going to raise that fucking [barrel of oil] price.” He should have directed that to price gouging at the pump—not the Saudis.
    Next case:
      Bill Gates, Co-founder and CEO of Microsoft, on Good Morning America, when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos ask him whether the government should make cuts in education and healthcare, he said: “Well, the budget is very, very out of balance” and to correct this, he said: “without changes in taxes and entitlement polices it won’t get back in balance.”
      George Stephanopoulos replied: “So, new taxes are going to be needed.”
     Bill Gates answered, “Oh, taxes are going to have to go up” He is absolutely correct.
     Here is where George: faltered: he failed to pin him down: on what taxes he would raise—and how much.
     The second part of his answer: “entitlements are going to have to be moderated.” Yes, it is big future problem but, not the cause of the present $14.2 trillion US National Debt. I have heard of no billionaire, who has advocated restoring progressivity to the income tax--cut, in half, by Reagan and Bush, that is partly responsible—for the rapidly growing national debt—including cuts in capital gains, dividend, gift, and the estate tax.
     The rich have become enormously rich in the last 30 years:
     The US government has become enormously in debt—and that is an excuse by the GOP, representing the rich and super rich in congress--to cut social programs and entitlements.
    Social Security and Medicare [HI] both have paid-in surpluses: Medicaid is a federal-state funded healthcare for the poor and low income families. They are the scapegoats—not the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the looting of the Social Security Trust Fund, the unpaid cost of two wars, the refusal of the GOP to raise taxes, and the increased cost of national security caused by the threat of terrorism, since 9/11.
     Entitlements are future problems: the $14.2 trillion debt we have now—are the cause of past—under taxation—putting the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq war on America’s credit card. Both Bush and Obama kicked the can down the road. That should be the first order of business: how to prevent the further escalation of the National Debt.
      And the next ticking time bomb: interest on the national debt—long term that is bigger than Medicare and Medicaid.
     Henry Paulson recently said, “Deficits is Americans greatest challenge.” The estimated deficit for 2011: $1.6 trillion: the problem is not entitlements. Total worldwide military expenditures for 2011 are expected to be about $2.1 trillion. Obama’s military budget is much less.
    Obama sticking with his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans and signing a 2 year tax cut on the richest Americans is leading America into super-big debt hole.
      Somebody has to stand up now—so, I sent this letter and email to the world’s –now second richest man: Bill Gates:
                                          May 3, 2011
                                                                 ^{[corrected 5/20/11]}
Dear Mr. Bill Gates,
      I heard you say on the ABC Good Morning to balance the budget, “taxes are going to have to go up” --but, you gave no specifics [and George Stephanopoulos failed to ask]. So, I would like to know what taxes: estate, gift, income, capital gains, dividends, corporate, war surtax, wealth, etc. and how much and I will post your answer on my website.
    I am also sending you my book: The Tax Guardian.com [to read]: I have sold no copies [published in July 2009]. Do you agree or disagree with it? I will post your answer on the website.
      Maybe, you could become a book sponsor: I also will send you my new book: The Tax Guardian—as soon as it published. I have proposed a number of tax increases to reduce the deficit.
     Also you said: “If people have ideas that we could spend it [referring to your foundation’s resources] better–I like to get that.” Actually, I do: I believe you should make a contribution to my website: thetaxguardian, so, I can break through the mass media blockade---and enlighten the public. Check it out: I mentioned you as one the four billionaires—that speak out. Do you agree or disagree with the posting?
      So, far I have gotten no response from: Warren Buffett, Ross Perot, Peter G. Peterson, Pat Robertson, Al Gore, Charlie Rose, Lee Iacocca, Michael R. Bloomberg, and most of the top newscasters, and magazines and newspapers editors. I have been totally ignored.
      I got the impression: the rich and the super rich don’t want to reform the tax code--or pay more taxes.
      You, need to decide—if, this information—provided by my website and book--is good or bad for American. I hope to hear from you. You could make a difference.
The US and World Tax Guardian,
                                      Walter F. Picca

Posted 4/15/11        Obama’s State of Union Address, Part I
                                                              ^{[Part II added 4/25/11]}
      It was designed to say what ever body would agree with and avoid issues, such as tax [increases], that would have evoked heckling by the Republicans on TV, that are at the bottom of the nation’s soaring debt. I expected a 2 year progress report—I got political hype instead. He failed to mention during his first 2 years in office: the National Debt has grown $3.427 trillion—not all his fault by a long shot, but, $400 billion more than he predicted.
      Here are some of the facts:
      In Feb—of 2009: he set a goal—saving or creating 3.2 million new jobs in 2 years; well, there has been a net loss—instead. Economic stimulus—does not work unless the conditions for economic growth are present. It is like planting seeds in dry, rocky soil.
      His jobs and debt goals have not been met.
   He said, the stock market came roaring back, but it is partially based on corporate profits—from laying off employees. And, since 83 percent of all US stocks are in the hands the top 1 percent-- it benefits main street very little.
      Corporate profits and executive bonuses have made a big come back. The bad news: nearly 13.5 million people remain out of work and lenders filed a record 3.8 million foreclosures in 2010, up 2 % from 2009, and according to Realty Trac – 2011 could be even worst. Not for JP Morgan: its profit surge 67 percent in the first quarter to $5.5 billion: median CEO salaries jumped 27% in 2010, while overall worker pay increased by just 2.1%.
     The wealthy are the winners: I read expensive homes are making a big come back-- not lower priced homes. They continue to fall in prices
      President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared in 1935: “Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of a few.” That is more true--today. Most of Obama’s 2010 budget tax proposals—to remedy the problem--were not enacted by congress; mostly, republicans stood in the way. He campaigned as a Reformer—but, got knocked out on all nine of his tax proposals on the wealthy.
       Here is a list:
        1. The reinstatement of the 36% and 39.6% income tax rates--failed.
        2. The increase in the dividend and capital gains tax to 20%--failed.
        3. The reinstate of the estate tax for 2010—failed.
        4. The elimination of offshore tax havens—failed.
        5. The proposal to maintain the estate tax at the 2009 levels—failed—instead: the exemption was increased to $5/10 million and the tax rate lowered to 35%—despite, the soaring National Debt.
        6.   The 28% cap on the value of itemized deductions---failed.
        7. The proposal to tax “carried Interest”—as income, instead of capital gains failed. Carried interest—refers to the manager’s fee for equity and hedge fund investment profits. In 2007, the average income of the top 25 hedge fund managers nearly $900 million, a substantial portion taxed at 15%.
     This $900 million is not profit from fund’s manager’s—money investment in the fund—or put at risk-- but the fund’s partners—but, his fee, as manager of the fund--is taxed as capital gains—rather than compensation.
       He has money invested in the fund—but, his fee and his gains or profits from his investment are both taxed as capital gains. One is a capital gain: one is a fee—or compensation—the same as a fee paid to executives who attend board meetings—or doctor fees.
       But, the present law allows both to be taxed as capital gains. That is wrong—a tax loophole. Considering our crushing US Debt—income over $10 million should be taxed at least 70 percent—where FDR put it.
       Rep. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said, “Congress must ensure that our tax code is fair. We have to be sure that the lower capital gains tax rate is not being inappropriately substituted for the tax rate on wages and earnings. Investment manages are being paid to provide a service to their limited partners and fairness requires they be taxes at the rates application to service income just as any other America worker.”
      He is right—but, congress refuses to correct it—i.e., mostly republicans. But, you might be surprised to learn-- one of the main opponents is a fox in sheep clothing: his name: Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY). “Carried interest” taxation is one of the most inequitable taxes in the code. President George W. Blush threatened to veto this tax bill years ago and it died in congress—until Obama became president. He put it in his 2010 budget; but, guess what: it hit a road block—again.
     Senator “Chuck” Schumer of is a principal blocker. He is one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wall Streets money. In the last election, he received $2.14 million from security and investment firms.
       In the past, he supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the bill that repealed the Glass‑Steagall Act. He supported the successful effort to limit SEC supervision of credit‑rating agencies—that gave triple A ratings to residential mortgage backed junk bonds. Him and Phil Gramm launched a successful effort to reduce fees Wall Street pay for government regulation: cutting costs by $14 billion over ten years. These three pieces of legislation strongly contributed to the subprime housing Bubble-Burst, that put us where we are today—in debt and foreclosure.
       He voted YES on extending reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends in 2005, during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars: that tax cut is unconscionable. He is a war surtax deserter. Past and present Wall Street money has gone to his head: he can’t tell the difference between right and wrong. Taxing a substantial part of $900 million in income, in some cases over a billion, at 15% is wrong. That is the tax rate for 2010 on taxable income from $16,750 to $68,000 [married filing jointly]—that is a gigantic gap—in the tax code
     Despite the staggering US Debt—even, the most egregious tax-loophole: “carried interest”-- the congress can’t close.
     Here are two more:
      8. The reinstatement of PEP—the phrase out of the personal exemption for taxpayers with high income--failed.
      9. The reinstatement of Pease—the phrase out of the benefit of itemized deductions for taxpayers with high income--failed.
       Nearly, 97% of these two tax cuts go to households with income over $200,000. There were put into the belly of Bush’s Trojan House—called: EGTRRA--the $1.35 trillion–2001 economic growth and tax relief bill. Nobody knew they were inside—except the rich: they were let out in 2006--the beginning of the phrase out with total repeal in 2010. The Bush phase out of PEP and Pease should have been killed in 2006.
       The bases for these two Bush Jr. hidden tax cuts on the rich, the lowering of the income tax rates, mostly on the rich, and the lowering of the estate tax; mostly on the super rich, were his phony projected surpluses of $4.124 trillion in ten years.
       In stead of surpluses, from 2001 to 2011, while his 2001, 2003, and 2005 tax cuts where in place: budget deficits totaled $5.196 trillion. Instead of ending these tax breaks; mostly for the rich, congress has extended them 2 more years--until 2013—that will add another $900 billion to the national debt. Surpluses were justification for enacting them: deficits were not justification for ending them. No matter how fair the tax increases are—or high the National Debt: Republican will not give ground on a single tax increase on the rich. That is dead wrong. Republicans blame Democrats for the deficits—not the two wars: they started: the true long-term cost of the Iraq war alone: $3 trillion. It was President Bush who looted the S.S. Trust fund for eight years of $1.352 trillion—during a time—when gave huge tax cuts to the rich. Then, add the cost of Afghanistan war running close to a $1 trillion--so far. President Obama had the stronger hand: the sunset of all the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010: he did not play his cards right: he capitulated to Republicans. He did not put up a good fight. He took a whipping from his slave masters —mostly, Republicans.
     He signed: HR 4231—that extends all the Bush tax cuts for two years and increased the estate tax exemption to $5/10 million and the lowered the tax rate to 35%: despite the growing off-the-chart US debt: two goals of the Republican Party.
      The plutocracy—or American Gaddafi regime—continues to control the US congress and Barack Obama got knock out–in his first two years in office—on all nine of his absolutely fair and needed tax proposals. Number 1 & 2 were slated to go into effect in 2011—the remaining seven which failed, conservatively speaking, will cost the US Treasury $1.542 trillion in ten years. Obama fought hard for healthcare reform—not his tax proposals. I blame congress more than him, I blame Republicans more than Democrats, and I blame the Senate more than the House. The House passed HR 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loophole Act of 2010, taxing “carried interest” as ordinary income: it was killed in the Senate. The provision taxing “carried interest” as income was removed and other tax-breaks for the rich were added—and wrongly renamed the “Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.” This is how congress blindfolds taxpayers by hiding tax cuts on the richest Americans in a bill, that is given a name that benefit the unemployed. This is deception and shows Senate republicans will not give way—on even, one of the most egregious tax loopholes in the tax code: “Carried Interest.” Raymond Dodd of the Economic Policy Institute says: Tax breaks for billionaires: Loophole for hedge fund manages costs billions in [lost] tax revenues.
       The National debt, as of April 13, 2011, -- $14.2 trillion—and has been growing at the rate of $4.07 billion a day, since Sept. 2007. Cuts in government spending cannot solve this escalating Debt-Crisis--alone: there must be tax increases: individual and corporate. Waiting for the economic growth to pay off this debt—is a mistake. That is what George W. Bush Jr. did for eight years. He said: tax relief, mostly for the rich, will put more money in the pockets of workers—instead, the rich got richer and created at big national debt. And, today, about 13.5 million are unemployed. Barrack Obama is following the same strategy.
      He signed the revised version of HR 4213—[under duress].
      His 2009--projected 2 year jobs gains and budget deficits were both wrong: they missed the target--completely. The unemployment rate is higher today than when Obama took office. His tax cuts—have increased the deficit—not lowered. He is a strong-talking —weak-kneed president –so far. His strategies are based unrealistic expectations--not facts or reality.
        To be continued……….

Posted   4/25/11           Obama State of Union Speech, Part II
                                                  ^{[corrected 9/26/11]}

     Obama said, “we should lower the Corporate income tax.” Here is the problem: very few corporations pay over 30 percent: most much less—and two-thirds don’t pay any income tax. General Electric, the largest US corporation, is the most egregious example:
      In 2007, it paid an effective rate of 15% [on profits]
       In 2008, it paid 5.3%
       In 2009, it had profit of $10.3 billion and paid no federal income tax and received $1.1 tax benefits
      In 2010, it had a worldwide profit of $14.2 billion--$5.1 billion in the US and paid no income tax.
      According to an article in the New Times: Corporations avoiding their share of running the country, such as General Electric, used “an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”
       The $200 million it spent on lobbying over the last decade paid off. In the last 5 years, GE has made $26 billion in profits and “received a net-tax benefit from the IRS of $4.1 billion.
       Here are some other examples:
      Exxon-Mobil, the second largest US corporation, from 2007 to 2009, made $19 billion and paid no federal tax: during the same period: Pfizer paid an average of 17.1%, Merck 12.5%, Citibank last year made $4 billion and paid no tax, Carnival Curse Lines earned $4 billion over the last 5 years and paid a tax rate of 1.1 percent, during the same period: Boeing paid 4.5%, Southeast 6.3%, Prudential Financial 7.6%, etc.
       According to Forbes—the average tax rate paid by the top 20 most profitable companies: 25.4%. That study is flawed; because, it includes worldwide taxes: it does not give the breakdown between US and Foreign-- and it was weighted: including Exxon‑Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, and Chevron--which had tax rates of 40% and over. That would raise the average: they pay higher taxes assessed on foreign oil production. These are the largest companies: it did not include these major corporations, reported by the NY Times,* such as:
           481 banks which paid an average of 17.5%
           198 petroleum producing companies that paid 11.3 percent.
           264 medical supplies 11.25
           333 computer software/services companies 10.1%
           239 Internet: 5.9%
           337 drug companies: 5.6%
           121 Biotechnology 4.5%
           * Source: study by Prof. Aswarth Damodaran, NY University
       Lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%--the GOP plan--would not affect what, most corporations pay: they already pay less than 25 percent. It is the tax heavens, loopholes, tax-breaks, and accounting shenanigans.
       Critics say, the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, next to Japan, which is 39.54%; however, that is only one part of the equation: you must consider these integrals:
      ☻ How the tax code treats corporate losses; for example: the US corporate tax allows carry back losses 2 years. Individuals can only deduct losses carried forward. That is a big corporate tax break.
     ☻ How corporate expenses are treated. Do foreign companies pay for living expenses of executives after they retire: apartment, car and driver, entertainment, cook, food, furnishings, laundry, etc—like GE does for ex-CEO-Jack Welch. These are tax deductible company expenses.
     This is a rip-off of taxpayers and shareholders: he can afford to pay his own living expenses.
     ☻ Does their tax code permit accelerated deprecation rates of assets (i.e., faster than actual), such as: machinery and equipment. That allows companies to reduce their tax liability. That is a tax break
      ☻ Do other nations allow corporations to defer payment of tax on foreign company profits—indefinitely—like the US.
      ☻ Do other nations allow corporations to deduct the difference between what executives pay, when they exercise company issued stock options and the market price-- as an expense: this is loophole.
     It is a double tax loophole—because, executives are increasingly taking compensation in form of stock options to pay 15% on capital gains—rather than the 35% on income from salary.
The reason for this change in the executive compensation conventional model:
      In 1986—income and capital gains were taxed at 28%—the lowering of the capital gains tax to 20% and then 15% and raising of the income tax to 35%: changed the way executives chose to be compensated: look at facts: they chose small salaries and big stock options and grants; generally, speaking.
   It has become a big tax-dodging scheme.
      The government loses billions--annually.
      In 2007, Senator Carl Levin introduced: S 2116 –the Ending Corporation Tax Favors for Stock Options Act—That is as far as it went: it sits on the shelf collecting dust. A controlling fraction of congress is morally—bankrupt.
      ☻ You must also look at tax credits.
      ☻   Here is the big reason multi-national corporations escape the US profit tax: they move their profits to countries—called “tax heavens”-- that have lower or no tax and move their expenses to the US—where the tax is higher. This practice is called: “offshore profit shifting.” It is wrong. The statutory tax rate is not the problem—entirely‑‑it is the offshore tax havens and corporate devious accounting practices—and their ability to keep congress off their backs—or unchecked.
     If, you watch 60 Minutes: New Tax Havens: Lesley Stahl pointed out corporations are using a mail-box address in countries with low taxes--to registry their headquarters—to avoid the US corporation profit tax.
      Listen: taxes must be fair. It is not fair to move the company’s headquarters or assets on paper to a foreign country-- to avoid US taxes; when, their physical assets, employees, sales and/or profits are made in the US. That is clearly tax evasion. This has been going on for years. I mentioned it back in 2005—but, it goes back to the 1990s.
     On Sixty Minutes: two examples were given: Ireland, which as a 12.5% corporation tax rate and Zug, Switzerland, which is 15-16 percent.
     But listen: the reason these two countries corporate taxes are lower: the US has 700 military bases in about 130 countries of the world: for the purpose of national defense—and the defense of other countries. The US worldwide military expenditures for 2010 reached a record $1.6 trillion. The US provides the UN with 23 percent of its funding. It gives billions in foreign aid. It funds NASA –the space station and inter-planetary exploration. Ireland and Zug Switzerland does have these expenses: Corporations that dodge taxes are unpatriotic Americans they want the worldwide protection and benefits of the US government: not the burden.
    So, lowering the tax rate to 25%, the GOP plan, would not solve these problems, unless tax heavens and loopholes were eliminated.
     Lowering corporate tax to 25% percent would put us behind these countries’ corporate tax rate: Japan 39.54, Argentina 35, France 34.43, Belgium 33.99, Luxembourg 30.38, Germany 30.18, Australia 30, New Zealand 30, Spain 30, Mexico 30, Canada 29.52, Norway 28, United Kingdom 28, Italy 27.5, Korea 27.5, Portugal 26.5, Sweden 26.3, Finland 26, Netherlands 25.5.
    Eliminate the loopholes, tax havens, and reduce the National Debt; then, lower the corporate tax rate to 25%.—better first: 30% Remember: from 1952 to 1963 the corporate tax rate was 52%. We are still fighting two wars—and now a third: Libya. It behooves American to reduce budget deficits now—to prevent their accumulation and hefty and burdensome future interest costs.
      The fact, that Corporations paid 30% of all federal taxes revenues in mid—1950s—and just 8.9% in 2010-- is proof they are not paying their fair share and the argument US corporate tax is excessive—is mostly bogus.
      Here are three flaws in the Forbes report:
       1. It states, in 2010, Exxon-Mobil paid $21.6 billion in taxes or 45 percent on pretax worldwide income—but, it paid only $3 billion in US income tax. It does not specify what tax rate it paid on US profits.
       2. It states: Conoco-Phillips paid 42% on pretax income of $19.8 billion: it does not state what it paid to the US.
       3. It states: Chevron had pre-tax income of $32 billion: its tax rate 40%. It did not state what it paid in US taxes.
      Senator Bernie Sanders’ list of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders—shows a different story:
       1. Exxon-Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009—and not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
       2. Conoco-Phillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
      3. Chevron earned $10 billion in 2009 and paid $0 in federal taxes and received $19 million in federal benefits.
      So, you can see how facts can be used to distort. Forbes omitted what Conoco‑Phillips and Chevron paid in U.S. income taxes in 2010: the reason, I am surmising: they paid zero.
     The US has a corporation AMT of 20%, but, like the individual AMT, congress has gutted both. I refer you to the aforesaid 1,973 companies: that paid less than 20 percent—only 129—or 6% of the 2,102 corporations in the NY Times article paid over 20 percent. So, the argument, that US corporation tax is excessive, for the most part, is bogus.
     The 32.4% paid by Wal-Mart—in 2009—did not stunt its growth—or the 24 eastern utilities companies that paid an average of 33.4 percent. There is no danger that they are going to move their operations offshore.
    But, listen: I did learn one thing from Sixty Minutes--as Lesley Stahl pointed out-- corporations are keeping $1.2 trillion in profits offshore –because, bringing it home, it would be taxed at the 35% statutory rate.
     Here the US corporate tax code is unfair—profits made in a foreign country, where branches or subsidiaries pay foreign corporate taxes on profits—should not be taxed the full statutory rate here in the US: I think, it should be 5% over 30, 10% over 20, and 15% over 10--or thereabouts.*
      But, it should not be zero: multi-national corporations should pay some of the cost of US military operations throughout the world—and some of the cost of the benefits and services received from the US government.
     Ireland or Zug, Switzerland, is not going to rescue you—if, pirates take over your ship in the Indian Ocean; it is the US Navy.
      *Exception, if a corporation has a sham headquarters: not where its profits are made: it should have to pay the full US tax rate.
      According to a Senate report: each year: the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to off shore abuses. It is not only corporations that are avoiding income taxes. U.S. and foreign investors use a wide variety of financial transactions, involving tax haven banks and hedge funds, to dodge US taxation on capital gains and dividends coming into the U.S. and going out. Congress is aware of these practices; but, has done little to stop them.
    Goldman Sachs used its 29 tax haven subsidiaries to reduce its tax on $2 billion in profit in 2008—to $14 million. It paid its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, 3 times as much: $42.9 million. Now, to complete the story, we need to know much he paid in taxes? I doubt he will tell us. That would help us reform the tax code!
    In one building in the Cayman Islands: 12,748 US companies have a mail drop [address]—out of nearly 19,000. It is a global problem.
      The world is infested with tax-cheaters.
      Obama pledged to crack down on offshore tax havens in his election campaign, in fact, as a Senator in 2007, he cosponsored the bill: Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act—it never came to a vote. It was reintroduced March 3, 2009, by Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx) in the House. Here is the stated purpose: would restrict the use of offshore tax havens and abusive tax shelters to inappropriately avoid Federal taxation. Of the 68 cosponsors of HR 1265-- none are Republicans. Twice -- 99% voted against cracking down on overseas tax havens—according to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s website.
      Obama said in his speech: “Tonight. I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years—without adding to our deficit. It can be done.(Applause).
      I don’t agree--completely--getting rid of loopholes to make up the difference of lost revenue by lowering the corporate tax rate—to come out even—or not add to the deficit ‑‑ is not the correct solution.
      Because, the statutory corporate tax rate has not been lowered in 25 five years, is not a good reason to lower it, conversely, it is a good reason to raise it; because, of the $12 trillion rise in the National Debt from 1986 to 2010—and meteoric rise of $3.424 trillion in the last 2 years.
      I believe, instead of lowering the corporate tax--it would be better to enact an AMT of 20% on corporate profits without deductions—which would accomplish three things: level the playing field, increase tax revenues—and help to lower the deficit. And most of all—it would be a simple change to make.
      I doubt, though, congress would give me an applause.
     I should say Obama got knocked down—but not out, he has two more years to go. But, things don’t look good; now, Republicans control the House.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am putting the exclusive right to publish my books for sale: they are not selling right now--but, they will in the future.

          1.   The Story of the New Valley Corporation Common Shareholder Lawsuit (with attachments)
          2.    The Evil Supreme Court
          3.    The Estate Tax and Politics
          4.     Why the Reagan and Bush Tax-cuts are Unfair (Second Edition with 2006 and 2007 updates)
          5.    The Tax Guardian.Com (postings from my blog: from 1/22/08 to 1/31/09
          6.     Postings from 2/25/09 to Jan. 6, 2011

2/25/09      Obama's Challenge
3/3/09        The War Surtax
3/10/09      Obama's Challenge #2
3/29/09      Obama's Speech to the Congress, Feb. 24
3/24/09      Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget
4/7/09        Surprise: I got a Letter from Al Gore
4/14/09    The Life Insurance Loophole
6/10/09      Have We Gone Grazy with Tax Free Income,   Income Deferrals, Deductions, and Tax Credits
6/10/09     The Demolition of the Income Tax
7/2/09       The Killing of the Estate (or inheritance) Tax--and Partial
                             Resurrection
7/9/09 Humpty-Dumpty is Obama
8/10/09     The Good and Bad Obama Tax Changes--So Far
8/25/09    The Soda Tax: Good or Bad
9/3/09        Adjusted Net Income
9/17/09      Obama's Speech on Healthcare Reform has Defects
  9/25/09     Obama on Face the Nation (9/20/09)
10/6/09      Obama on Meet the Press (9/20/09)
10/13/09    Obama on This Week (9/20/09)
10/28/09    The National Budget Deception Continues in the Obama Administration
11/17/09     The Maj. Nidal Hasan Case
1/22/10      My Experience as a Juror
2/28/10     The Dysfunctional Congress
3/1/10         Analysis of the Charlie Rose Show, Feb. 18, 2010: Debt and Deficits
3/22/10      The Healthcare Reform Bill
4/13/10      The David Walker TV Interview
5/29/10      Two Oracles (or Sages), Part I
6/24/10      Two Oracles (or Sages), Part II
7/29/10      My Mistake
8/13/10      Judge Vaughn Walker is Wrong
12/9/10 -- 12/28/10   Tweets (i.e., for December)
Jan. 6, 2011     Mr. Hell No

I have a contact page at the rear of my blog--for those interested--or you may email me at newvalleyinfo@yahoo.com

Poste
_______________________________________________________________________________________

My Book

                               THE TAX GUARDIAN. COM
                                       By Walter F. Picca
                         Postings from my blog: 1/22/08 to 1/31/09
    Contents:
    Posted 2/11/08     The Model Income................................................. ..........1 page
     Posted 2/12/08     Tax Issues........................................................................4
      Posted 2/14/08      Huckabee's Fair (bad) Tax...............................................5
     Posted 2/21/08      Render unto Cesar, that which is Cesar's..........................7
     Posted  2/24/08     Quote....................................................................... .......8
     Posted 2/26/08      To California...................................................................9
    Posted 2/27/08      Clinton-Obama Debate (Texas)........................................10
     Posted 2/28/08      The Poll Tax...................................................................12
     Posted 3/10/08      McCain...........................................................................12
     Posted 3/11/08      The Seer.........................................................................13
     Posted 3/12/08      Americans Are Suckers for Tax-Cutters...........................14
     Posted 3/13/08      The Federal Budget Deception.........................................15
    Posted 3/14/08      The Mass Media is Guilty!...............................................16
     Posted 3/17/08      The Budget-Debt Gap!....................................................17
     Posted 3/18/08      The Death Tax................................................................18
     Posted   3/19/08     The Addendum...............................................................21
    Posted   4/1/08       Two Crises.....................................................................21
    Posted 4/2/08       The Problem...................................................................23
     Posted   4/4/08       Ralph Nader....................................................................25
    Posted 4/7/08       Tickle-Down Economics..................................................25
     Posted 4/8/08       Two Indispensable Tax Principles.....................................26
     Posted 4/9/08       Two Choices....................................................................27
     Posted  4/10/08      The Gift Tax....................................................................27
      Posted   4/22/08     Plutocrats Dislike the Capital Gains Tax.............................29
      Posted   5/5/08    Capital Gains Tax..............................................................30
     Posted   5/6/08      The Gold Standard............................................................32
     Posted   5/7/08      1 day--makes big tax difference..........................................33
     Posted   5/12/08    Private Equity and Hedge Funds.........................................35
     Posted   5/20/08    The Big Rip-off..................................................................37
    Posted 5/20/08     Bad Idea............................................................................38
     Posted   5/22/08    Two bad US Trends..........................................................39
     Posted   6/16/08    Was Ex-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan
                                           Greenspan--a Sage or Stooge?..................................41
     Posted   6/24/08    Is Barack Obama--an idiot?................................................43
     Posted   7/15/08    One of Congress's most shameful acts...............................47
     Posted   7/28/08    More on Obama on Taxes.................................................52
     Posted   7/29/08    More on McCain on Taxes................................................53
    Posted   7/30/08 Pandering..........................................................................55
     Posted   8/7/08      Cleaning House on Itemized Deductions.............................57
     Posted   8/11/08    Reality-Check!...................................................................61
     Posted   8/19/08    The Big-Bad Change..........................................................62
     Posted   8/25/08    The California Budget Crisis--Update..................................63
     Posted   9/23/08    Ross Perot, the Boss.........................................................66
     Posted   9/9/08      Obama's and McCain's VP Pick.........................................68
     Posted   9/16/08    (Some) RNC--distortions...................................................69
     Posted   9/17/08   The California Budget Deadlock--Update.............................71
     Posted   9/23/08    Sarah Palin--Who...............................................................72
     Posted   9/24/08    Biden vs. Palin...................................................................73
     Posted   9/25/08    McCain--the Immoral Taxpayer..........................................74
     Posted   10/1/08    The California Budget Deal.................................................75
     Posted   10/10/08 McCain's and Obama's Healthcare Plan are Flawed..............77
     Posted   11/06/08   Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha"...............................78
     Posted   11/24/08   The Media Blockade..........................................................91
     Posted   12/2/08     Bush's Legacy...................................................................96
     Posted   12/08/08   Four Letters.......................................................................99
     Posted   12/10/08   Obama--the Panderer, the Fool, the Idiot............................100
     Posted   12/17/08   President Bush--the single biggest waster of taxpayer
                          dollars and accomplishes very little, except--Big Public Debt.......103
     Posted   12/27/08   The budget deficit in California and New York are
                                                      similar (i.e., the problem)................................104
     Posted 12/29/08    Fifth Letter.........................................................................107
     Posted   1/21/09     Is Bush--a Liar, a Deceiver, Just Wrong--or all Three?.........108
     Posted   1/31/09     Bush's Final Tally...............................................................111

                                               Scroll down for other books by Walter F. Picca

Posted 1/2/12 2011
There has been a 100% blackout of my allegations, truths, and tax principles by the Mass Media in 2011—preventing the public or voters from learning the truth [or facts].

Posted 8/19/11 MY NEW BOOK: THE TAX GUARDIAN --- postings from my blog: 2/25/09 to 2/2/11 -- corrected, revised, and updated: now--available at iUniverse and other Internet retailers.

Posted 10/3/11 Eli Broad, the Consummate Tax-Dodger

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Book

Posted 1/2/12 2011 There has been a 100% blackout of my allegations, truths, and tax principles by the Mass Media in 2011—preventing the public or voters from learning the truth [or facts].

Posted 8/19/11 MY NEW BOOK: THE TAX GUARDIAN --- postings from my blog: 2/25/09 to 2/2/11 -- corrected, revised, and updated: now--available at iUniverse and other Internet retailers.

Posted 10/3/11 Eli Broad, the Consummate Tax-Dodger

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Book

Posted 1/2/12 2011
There has been a 100% blackout of my allegations, truths, and tax principles by the Mass Media in 2011—preventing the public or voters from learning the truth [or facts].