Honest: To be, or not to be

When did being a candidate for the American presidency mean that you had to be or at least accept being dishonest? The headline from Huffington Post is a case in point:

Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On 'Active' Role At Bain Capital

It appears that the Republican Party believes the lack of honesty will work for them this year.

Over the past several months, Mitt Romney and his campaign have strenuously argued that Romney cut his ties from Bain Capital in 1999. Documentation, signed by Romney and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seem to prove otherwise.

This statement of disassociation from Bain is a central tenant of Romney's campaign meant to limit his exposure to Bain actions, occurring between 1999 and 2001, that conflict with his preferred campaign story line.

The assertion goes that the use of Romney's signature as President, CEO and Chairman of Bain was purely administrative, acting as a stop-gap measure while the company and Romney transitioned from one hundred percent Romney ownership of Bain Capital to its new owners ...apparently Romney subordinates from within Bain.

This administrative convenience extended for three years, from 1999 through 2001, ending in 2002. Romney and his campaign claim that Romney had no role at Bain after 1999.

Now we are informed that the Romney's 2010 federal income tax submission claimed more than $500,000 dollars of expenses related to his active role in his investments at Bain Capital and/or companies associated with Bain Capital. This (they claim, legal) sleight of hand reaped a half million dollar deduction from the Romney's 2010 taxable (non-capital gains) income.

The Huffington Post article (referenced above) quotes a statement from the IRS describing what constitutes being 'active' for tax purposes:

Factors that indicate active participation include:

• making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity;
• performing services for the activity; or
• hiring / discharging employees

Factors that demonstrate lack of active participation include:

• lack of control in managing and operating the activity;
• having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity; and
• having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee.

So how can Romney be both an active member of Bain Capital for tax purposes in 2010 but not be involved since 1999 for purposes of his presidential campaign? It appears that Romney and his campaign are honesty-challenged on matters related to Bain Capital and his family's income tax returns.

It is well past time when Romney should come forward with his income tax returns from the time when he claims to have left Bain Capital through the current tax year. Nothing less will establish his integrity and honesty or, conversely, prove the lack thereof.

The difference is 'black and white'

In this time of partisan divide, the country is at the mercy of politicians whose main objective is to get reelected, not to serve the country's best interests. Consequently, politicians are at the mercy of those who elected them to office. The 2010 watershed election in which a large number of tea party candidates were elected to office might prove to be the straw that breaks the back of our economy.

Seldom is any issue definable in black and white terms, but today's political climate is couched in black or white. Take a look at the blue and aqua bars on the chart below to see the black and white differences.

How to name a golf group

Say you have a group of men who want to play golf on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9:00 a.m. at one of the local golf clubs. Some in the group are members of the club where play will occur, some are not. So you can't rely on the Pro Shop to list the people playing each day. Some are not in the Club's computer system.

With the group being eclectic, some members, some non-members, some pretty good golfers, some not so much, it becomes the duty of the coordinator of each day's golf outing to devise a efficient and effective way to allow those who wish to play to make their wishes known.

One way to do that is for the coordinator to schedule a set of team tee times at the Club; for the coordinator to e-mail the potential player pool of the scheduled tee times and ask that prospective players reply with a reservation request to the coordinator by a specified time.

This approach works if the pool of potential players have e-mail, the members of the group are responsive to requests that they confirm their desire to play each respective day, and that they do it in a timely manner to allow the coordinator to schedule more tee times if necessary, or, conversely, to release unneeded tee times back to the Pro Shop so that others are able to use the relinquished tee times.

This is a very workable system if everyone has e-mail and each is assiduous in responding to the coordinator. The failure of the system comes in two modes: 1) Some have Internet connections, but are unschooled in the use of the Internet and, therefore, e-mail is a mystery unsolved; 2) Some, not yet introduced to more advanced electronic media are restricted to the archaic (some as deprived as land-land only) telephone or even the more primitive word-of-mouth. On the one hand, the Internet-capable but response-deficient fail to get back to the coordinator while, at the same time, the phone-restricted oftentimes fail to get the word at all.

So the answer to this dilemma of unresponsive Internet users and people without Internet capability is to have the individual group members to call the Pro Shop and indicate that they will play with the group on the date specific and at the time that the group will be playing on that date. To ensure that the group member and the Pro Shop employee communicate completely and that the player get assigned to the right group, it would help if the group has a name. Therein lies the problem. To have a name, someone must create or select the name.

If you have 50 people in a group and you ask for suggestions for a name for the group, you will get at least 100 suggestions. Most will be unworkable, profane, inappropriate in some other way or down right moronic. So what to do?

With the new media, Wikipedia, GOOGLE, and other technological marvels ...just do a search. Here's some of what you get:

• Lost Balls
• One Club Short
• Within The Leather
• Putz Out
• Diminishing Distance
• Clipped Turkeys
• Homeless Turkeys

• Old Turkeys
• Wild Turkeys
• Turkey Buzzards
• Gobblers
• The Remainder
• Hangin' On
• Men's Golf
• Herren Golf (German)
• Golf Uomo (Italian)
• Hommes de Golf (French)
• Golf del hombre (Spanish)
• Sand Blasters
• Missed Putz
• Par Plus
• Park Close

As an aside, turkey is included in many of the names because our old club was named Turkey Creek ...likewise, our former group name was the Mafia. We are taking this opportunity to drop our pseudo criminal association ...no more Mafia, Cosa Nostra, and the like.

Most of these names are lame. So, if it were your choice, what would you name the group?

Am I a conservative?

My wanting to return to a functional government wherein members of different political parties can work together to accomplish something for America ...does that make me a conservative? I don't think so.

Always in the past, I was of the opinion that divided government at the federal level was the best government.

Back in the day, divided did not mean irreparably split government. Politicians of different parties, different ideologies, different constituencies, could sit across the table and compromise on what would be best for America. No more.

Today our politics, our government is hopelessly split right to left with about a third of the people, sane and located in the middle between these polarized factions.

Radical right wing or radical left wing politics can be debilitating to government action. In fact today, polarization has brought our government to nearly a complete halt, to helplessness.

I don't need my government bureaucrats and politicians to have their arms interlocked, singing kumbayah as they work to further the nation's business. But today, government inaction is causing our country to founder at a time when we need a captain at the helm and a ship's company, not intent on punching holes in the bottom of the boat, but rowing in one direction to the nation's benefit.

Compassion v. Insurance

Historically, Americans have scrambled off to the Emergency Room when a severe medical condition, accidental or otherwise, suddenly occurred. The ER acted as its name implied to meet medical needs when the unforeseen medical emergency occurred. In the ER, at the moment of emergency, compassion for the needs of the injured or sick patient overrode any concern for payment. Treatment was delivered.

For all other medical conditions, we saw our personal physician or when there was no previous doctor-patient relationship, we asked a neighbor, a family member for a physician reference. Frequently, we consulted a phone book to find a doctor receptive to taking on a new patient. Other times, or in other circumstances, we may have walked into one of the publicly supported or privately owned clinics. Many went to the emergency room to see a doctor whatever the medical need.

Generally speaking, if medical attention was pursued, a source of service was found irrespective of one's having insurance coverage, sufficient personal wealth or other means of paying for the service requested. Because of some people's inability to pay (no money>, not infrequently the provider went unpaid by the party receiving the service leaving payment to be socialized, distributed to those who are capable of paying for their services. Oftentimes such visits are very costly.

So if it is true that the vast majority of sick or injured people find a source of medical attention when requested, then what is the need for the Affordable Care Act ...sometimes described as ObamaCare? One answer: A major obstacle to overcome in the operating practices in any reformed healthcare system is to convince the prospective patient that an early trip to the doctor will not escalate into financial ruin. Getting patients into preventive care will greatly reduce the implicit or explicit need for a trip to the Emergency Room. A process such as that afforded by the Affordable Care Act will go far in accomplishing this preventive care goal.

The concerns highlighted in the "practices to overcome" statement in the previous paragraph:

• People delay needed treatment. People with limited or no insurance or monetary resources are reluctant to request medical services prior to having what is perceived as a 'life-threatening' medical emergency. Human nature assumes that given time the condition will improve without professional intervention coupled with the fear of becoming indebted beyond an ability to pay causes many proud individuals to delay treatment. Some, while understanding the need for treatment, attempt to diagnose and treat themselves with medicines and remedies available to the lay public. Others, to their misfortune, tough-it out, reject treatment and endure the pain for a period well after initial symptoms occur.
• Delaying treatment, most importantly, costs lives, but it also adds to the costs of medical care in the United States. Treatment delayed is a formula for treating more severe and frequently more life threatening conditions. For the common good, America must join the ranks of the major industrialized countries of the world to provide the basic preventive services that early-on brings all citizens to a health care provider. Each of our people must have a receptive, welcoming physician or clinic available for preventive care and when illness strikes. No one should be reluctant to bring attention to personal or family needs based on the lack of funding, either insurance or personal wealth.

Thankfully, we are a compassionate society. When presented with the need to provide medical attention, doctors with their Hippocratic oath, the ethical standards of many private hospitals and the public responsibility of government provided hospitals, help, when requested, is made available.

The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is to deliver appropriate medical services at the appropriate time, to each of our citizens and at a more cost effective way than is currently accomplished.

Andrew Sullivan speaks Obama ...

In this political season we are all too often ready and willing to accept the most outlandish claims. Truth has little currency. Anything that one Party, one individual or one candidate wishes to say about another seems fair game. If the candidate, personally is unwilling to say an untruth one or more of the so-described, unaffiliated Political Action Committees (PACs) or SuperPacs are able and more than happy to make false accusations to benefit a candidate that the PAC or SPAC supports. Typically, PACs and SuperPacs on the other side are quick to respond in kind. Damn the facts, full-speed ahead, befuddle the gullible.

In today's society, the watchdog media is nowhere to be found to perform the traditional news organization responsibility of bringing the many inaccuracies and outright lies to the court of truth. The stars of the news world hold a monopoly on media portals. They jealousy protect their seats of power. Most will do nothing to challenge government or corporate officialdom least they loose their lofty media perch. It is pervasive, yet unwritten rule of the media star survival ethos.

One shinning exception to the malfunctioning news media is the current Andrew Sullivan article in Newsweek entitled: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics. Sullivan, a self-professed, conservative-leaning independent, has written a short, but definitive history of Obama's presidency. He defends his support yet claims a level of impartiality by stating:

A caveat: I [Sullivan] write this [Newsweek article] as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made...

The article is a must read for those Americans who will not be satisfied with partisan propaganda and wish to know the facts about our current economy and the Obama presidency.

It's your America, you decide

Whether you are a have looking out or a have not looking in, it is difficult to dispute that over the past several decades a major portion of the nations wealth is accumulating to a smaller and smaller number of people. The proportion going to the wage and salary earner has leveled-off while the wealthy become richer and richer.

Is that a good or bad thing?

The chart to the left from a Slate article by Matthew Yglesias in his MoneyBox blog, depicts the phenomenon of the growth in Gross Domestic Product from 1945 to 2007, plotted against the rise in median family income over the past number of years. As is commonly known, Gross Domestic Product, usually referred to by the acronym GDP, is the sum of all the monies generated by the production of goods and services within the American economy.

It should be intuitive to readers that any deviation between the growth of median family income and the rise or fall of GDP is the definition of the transfer of wealth between labor and corporations. In other words, if the Gross Domestic Product is increasing but median family income remains static or is falling (business describes this as a productivity improvement) then wealth is being transferred upward to the corporation. Conversely, if wages remain constant or increase as GDP levels-off or declines, wealth is transferred to the workers. Workers are being paid more for their services,

As is clearly shown, the deviation between GDP and median family wages traveled in synchronization from 1945 to the recession of the early 1980's. Since that time the gap between the two has continued to grow wider and wider. Wealth is on an accelerating path of transfer from the average individual to the corporation and the wealthy few.

The chart shown to the right illustrates the GDP growth path from 1977 through 2005.

Is the transfer of wealth from the many to the few a good or bad thing? That, of course, depends on your perspective ...whether you are one of the few or one of the many.

In our capitalistic society much is made of the freedom of opportunity. It is said that 'anyone can make it if they try'. While that is true in theory, circumstances lessen the opportunity for many based most prominently on their heritage, the environment in which they are born into. A child born into wealth has a plethora of opportunity not available to a child born into poverty. Is it possible for the poor to overcome the challenges of environment and heritage and succeed in life? As Sarah Palin would say, "you betcha." Many have done so. Many will continue to do so in the future. Certainly, capitalism offers the best hope of any previously discovered of societal methods.

Over the past several years, the world has changed. Globalization of the means of production, the customer base, corporation ownership and other factors has shifted the corporation and labor relationship. Companies are able to increase productivity by moving labor intensive work offshore to low wage countries. Products and services that once were the exclusive domain of American producers and American labor are now routinely built and delivered from outside our borders. The car you drive is as likely to be built in Japan, South Korea, Mexico and soon to be online China and India as it is to be built by Detroit.

The support center that you call for help on your computer problems is almost always in India. The software package, from a major computer company, that I am using to compose this blog content is now headquartered in Bejing. Not so long ago, all of its developers were located in Texas. The same company is reaping the benefits of its production, yet the wages being earned for its production are now paid at a much lower rate and to Chinese nationals, not Americans. Our GDP captures the revenue of this American corporation, but the labor payment is to workers in China. Our median family income drops as the former producers and developers drop out of the labor force, move to less well paying jobs, etc.

Our economy is changing. We are in recovery as demonstrated by improvements in our GDP. Now the country must find a way to improve the financial status of our work force. Ways must be found to provide well paying jobs for Americans else we will continue to see the transfer of wealth from the populace to the corporations. People who run the corporations will be well compensated because they will have accomplished the objective of increasing the wealth of their stockholders.

The gap in remuneration between the workers of America and the wealth of corporations will continue to widen. America must decide what path it will take. Will it be a country that provides equal opportunity for all or will it be a country that increasingly is stratified into the haves and the have not's? You decide.