World's Dumbest Criminal Award

 

I nominate Hannah Sabata for the World's Dumbest Criminal Award. Hannah posted a video on YouTube in which she is seen displaying hands full of cash. She says, "I just stole a car and robbed a bank. Now I'm rich, I can pay off my college financial aid, and tomorrow I'm going for a shopping spree."

 

Hannah was arrested not long after the video was posted. Doesn't look like that college education did her much good.

 

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; December 9, 2012; p. 1P.

Poor Jerry!

 

Poor, poor, Jerry Sandusky, the serial child molester. His lawyer says Jerry's outlook has improved since his conviction, and he wants prison officials to house him in "less-restrictive conditions." Don't you feel sorry for him?

 

"Sandusky wants confinement eased." The Dallas Morning News; December 8, 2012; p. 5A.

 



Fallacies in Fred's Argument

 

Fred Hiatt says the federal income tax charitable deduction is unfair because it means more to a rich person than it does to a middle class one. Then he makes his points -- many of which are flawed.

 

I'm not going to debate the wisdom of keeping the deduction. I'm of the opinion that the best way to reform the tax code is to institute a flat tax of 10% on all income -- no deductions. That way, everyone foots the bill on an equal basis. If you don't make much, you don't pay much. If you make a lot, you pay a lot.

 

At any rate, Fred says that the deduction "lets people feel they are beating the system even as they practice virtue." Wow! Fred sure has a high opinion of people, doesn't he? Mr. Essie May and I itemize our charitable contributions, but taxes are not the reason we give. We'll give the same whether we get a deduction or not. And we pay so much in taxes I've never felt we've been able to "beat the system."

 

Fred says the deduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and the rest of the country has to make up the gap. Has Fred considered that the charitable contributions those people are making may be keeping some people off the government dole and saving the government money? Maybe those "wealthy" people are really closing a gap there. Fred is assuming that the increase in taxes the "wealthy" would pay without the deduction has to be made up by someone else. Not really, Fred. The government could cut some waste. See my recent post on Homeland Security expenditures.

 

Fred uses an example. He says a California billionaire gives $10 million to a Los Angeles hospital. If he takes that deduction, he will pay $3.5 million less than he would have had to pay otherwise. So let's look at this. If the billionaire had not made the donation, the hospital would not be able to offer the additional services it now offers because of its expansion. The billionaire would have to pay $3.5 million in taxes, but he'd still have $6.5 million in his pocket. Making the donation, even with his tax deduction, he has $6.5 million less in his pocket. How does that profit the billionaire?

 

Then Fred expands his example. He posits that the billionaire made his donation with stock for which he paid $5 million and that has increased to $10 million in worth. He said he avoids paying any capital gains tax which he would have had to pay had he sold the stock and put the money in his bank account. But he didn't sell the stock, so he had no proceeds. You make money on a stock only when you sell it.

 

Then Fred says that if someone in a lower tax bracket than Fred made the donation, he wouldn't get to take the full value of the deduction, because his tax rate is lower, and that's unfair to him. In the first place, someone in a lower tax bracket probably couldn't afford to give $10 million away. But, for the sake of argument, let's examine Fred's contention. Let's say Fred's billionaire made $500 million dollars in the year he made his $10 million donation, and he's in the 35% bracket. So he pays 35% on $490 million or $171,500,000. Fred uses the example of someone at a 15% rate, so let's follow that logic. If your rate is 15% and you made $500 million dollars and made your $10 million donation, then you paid $73,500,000. Sounds like the 15 per-center is better off to me.

 

So Fred sums up his garbage by stating that we need to decide how much we want to "pay to help renovate that hospital wing with the billionaire's name above the door." As far as I can tell, Fred, it hasn't cost me a cent.

 

"Charitable deduction a question of fairness." The Dallas Morning News; December 4, 2012; p. 13a.

 

 

 

 

 

Was it really a panacea?

 

When the multi-million dollar The Bridge Homeless Shelter was opened in Dallas in 2008, it was to be the panacea for Dallas' homeless problems. Now, just four years later, it appears that maybe it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

 

The city is contemplating contributing $950,000 to the $1.35 million cost to renovate the shelter. The outdoor pavilion will be enclosed to try to keep the homeless from wandering the streets nearby. It seems they are constantly complaining about the heat and the cold there. The entrance will be switched to the opposite side of the building from where it currently is. It seems business owners in the area and the Farmers Market vendors are plagued by panhandlers, drug dealers, and prostitutes. But the business owners on the side of the building that will now be the entrance aren't too happy. Mike Sarimsakci owns property to the west of the building, and he said the city hasn't said how they'll handle the problems on his side.

It sounds to me as if Dallas still has a homeless problem -- they're just shifting it from one spot to another.

 

"Shelter to move entrance, enclose pavilion." The Dallas Morning News; December 6, 2012; p. 3B.

 



Why We Face a Fiscal Cliff

 

Expenditures through the Department of Homeland Security:

• $24,000 for a mobile latrine in Fort Worth
• $98,000 for an underwater robot in Columbus, Ohio -- note that there are no major rivers and few lakes nearby
• $285,933 for an armored "BearCat" vehicle for Keene, New Hampshire -- note that the population of Keene is less than 25,000 and has had 1 homicide in the last 3 years
• $21 for a fish tank in Seguin, Texas
• $250,000 for security upgrades at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis
• $6,167 for animal crates and a hog catcher in Liberty County, Texas

Does Obama truly want what's good for the nation?

 

I read with interest where Obama "flatly rejected any budget deal that did not raise tax rates on income above $250,000 a year, even if it meant driving the economy into a recession."

 

And most assuredly, raising taxes will drive the economy into a recession. Obama, himself, has said that now is not the time to raise taxes. If it's about revenue, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both proved that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy benefits everyone -- revenues increase, because the wealthy are not afraid to invest in enterprises that generate profits on which taxes are paid and generate jobs for other people who pay taxes on their salaries and spend their money at other businesses that become more profitable  and pay more taxes and hire more people, etc., etc., etc. Besides, if Obama raises taxes on "the rich" at the rates he proposes, it will bring in enough to operate the government for approximately 8 days. Who's going to foot the bill for the other 357?

 

Raising taxes, on the other, hand, causes businesses to retrench, to cut the workforce, and to delay expansion. When people are out of work, they not only don't contribute on the revenue side, they also take from the expense side. But Obama continues to insist that economic expansion must come from "the middle out." He hasn't yet provided an explanation of how such a thing can be accomplished. All he knows is that the "rich" need to pay more.

 

Besides that, he's not willing to address spending cuts at all. "You give me my way on taxes," he says, "And we'll cut spending later." Yeah, right. If you believe that, someone near and dear to me has a fountain to sell you! This country doesn't have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. And for the icing on the cake, Lord Obama has proposed that Congress turn over its constitutional power to raise the debt ceiling to him -- and require a 2/3 majority vote to overrule him. I find it alarming that the news media have said very little about such a blatant power grab -- with all his czars and the unlimited power bestowed upon the HHS Secretary through Obamacare, I fear we are headed toward dictatorship. Obama is headed toward unfettered control, and that, my friends, is what he really wants. 

Here are the alternatives.

 

Several restaurant chains have announced that the burdens of Obamacare are forcing them to take measures such as limiting all their employees to 30 hours a week or less. Elizabeth Walley thinks they are "spiteful, cheap businesses that hurt their employees to score political points." She recommends not patronizing those establishments. I guess she thinks closing and laying off employees is more advantageous to the employee than curtailed hours.

 

Actually, Elizabeth, a restaurant has little to gain from hurting its employees. And most restaurants are in business to make a profit -- not influence politicians. What they are dealing with is an economic reality. The money, and we're talking a lot of money, has to come from somewhere. But, to humor you, here are some alternatives.

 

Higher prices -- how much more are you willing to pay so that the business can continue to keep all its employees at full time?

 

Lower quality food -- the restaurant can cut back on portion size and food quality. Instead of the best beef, they can buy an inferior grade. Instead of Grade A large eggs, they can buy small eggs. Instead of the best vegetables, they can buy the culls. They can water down the sodas and the tea and coffee. 

 

Fewer employees -- should the restaurant fire enough of its workforce to be able to continue carrying the rest full time?

 

Less efficient service -- with fewer employees, you can bet your service won't be what it once was. So will you cut back on the tips for a worker who is already trying to cover for the two employees the restaurant had to let go?

 

Fewer locations -- In order to keep the number of employees below the Obamacare limit, some chains will probably close some of their locations or not expand where they had planned to. Instead of driving a couple of miles to that Olive Garden, you may have to drive 10 or 20 miles.

 

Less profit -- the restaurant owner may decide that it's no longer profitable enough for him to stay in business, so he'll just close up altogether and do something else. Then no one will have a job, and you won't have a choice of where to go eat.

 

So, Elizabeth, you tell us -- which alternative is the best one? Don't know? I'll give you a hint -- REPEAL!

 

"Do your staff right." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. 18A.