Do Corporations Ever Pay Taxes?

It is a popular mantra as the Democrats trot out the well-worn class envy argument that big corporations (along with all the rich) do not pay their fair share.  What about big corporations.  Have they ever paid taxes?  Will they ever pay taxes?  Can they be made to pay taxes?  Unlike personal income I would suggest to you that corporate income never really gets taxed.  Consider an example.  Let take big oil since they are the really really bad bad guys.  Let consider Exxon/Mobil:

Revenue for 2010 was 383 billion
Profit for 2010 was 30.5 billion
While large corporations often pay no income tax in the United States and this is true with Exxon/Mobil it does not mean that they do not pay taxes.  Exxon/Mobil paid 7.7 billion in taxes through sales tax and duties.

We could argue till the "cows come home" about effective tax rates and and if they are paying their fair share and is it right that they are paying more income tax to foreign countries than to the United States.  It seems there is a more fundamental question.  Where does Exxon/Mobil get their money to tax?  in 2010 they got it from their 383 billion dollars in revenue.  This is the income they generated from the goods and services they provided.  So the money came from their customers!  While some of their customers are no doubt other big corporations some of their customers are ordinary regular consumers like you and me who make a trip or two to the gas pump one or two times a week.  And where did their big corporations customers get their money to pay Exxon/Mobil.  They got their money from the revenues they generated by providing goods and services to their customers.

The reality is that every dime of taxes paid by Exxon/Mobil was paid by you and me; the consumer.  It always has been, it always will be.  The tax burden of a business is a cost of doing business and the cost is passed on to the customer, and it eventually makes it way down to the individual consumer.

So the next time you want Congress to sock it to the big corporations and make them pay their fair share prepare to open your wallet because the tax increase is coming to a gas pump near you in the form of higher prices.

Think about it!

Go Ahead, Speak Your Mind

It was Jimmy Hoffa yesterday using strong rhetoric and course language directed at the Tea Party.  A week or so ago it was Texas Governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry claiming the chairman of the Federal Reserve may not be well received in Texas if he just kept printing money.  He did so with a bit of Texas swagger.

Have you noticed that we increasingly live in a country where everyone is called on the carpet for what they say, the expressions they use, the metaphors they employ, the hyperbole they exercise.  The result is the people do not really say what they are thinking.  We do not benefit from this environment.  I'm glad Hoffa said what he did.  It helps me to know if I like him or not and why.  It helps me to know if I agree with his heart-felt ideas.  I helps me understand what he is passionate about.  I know a little more about Jimmy Hoffa now, and because he is the head of the Teamsters and their spokesman I have an opinion about their organization that is in part shaped by what Jimmy Hoffa said.  I'm glad he said it.  Considering the environment I can imagine the kinds of things he says in private if he is willing to say these things in public and stand by them knowing they will attract scrutiny.

The same is true about Governor Perry's statement about the Federal Reserve Chairman.  I helps me to know what he thinks about printing money.  It helps me to get a feel for his passion level about the issue.  It gives me a sense of his overall spirit.  I know him a little better.

But now we live in a day when someone speaks from their heart revealing what they really believe, it is scrutinized and they immediately back pedal.  Hoffa has not done that and for this I commend him.  If he believes it I am glad he had the courage to state it, so I can know what he believes.

Bachman this past week made a statement about all the natural disasters we have experienced recently from drought, to flood, to earthquake, to hurricane and I believe speaking from her heart said something along the lines of, Maybe God is trying to tell us something.  The statement was criticised and her campaign began to back away from it saying she was making a joke.  Does that really help.  First I don't believe she was making a joke.  Second I think she realized it might not be a popular view, so she was just trying to be funny.  That does not really help though.  There is nothing funny about God, or natural disasters.  Her view is not completely idiotic but a really good case could be made from Scripture that it is the correct view.  It may not be what the majority believes but if she believes it then I wish she would say it, and then like Hoffa stand by it.  Her backtracking says something about her as well.  I know more about Bachman as a result of that incident.

I think the discourse needs to be more honest and not more civil.  Unless of course more civility is an honest expression of the discourse.  Go ahead and use coarse language.  Go ahead and use racial slurs.  Go ahead and vilify those who disagree with you.  If you are tough, talk tough.  If you are mild, use mild language.  If you are passionate about something let your speech, expressions, rhetoric, metaphors, and hyperbole reveal it.  Be yourself and speak your mind.

I realize that very few people say everything they think especially in public and we can probably all be grateful for that.  But let it be because they have determined it is best left unsaid and not because they are afraid of being called on the carpet for expressing what they truly believe and feel about something.

If the truth be known most people are probably jealous of Hoffa for having the courage to "tell it like it is".  At least as he believes it is.  I for one am glad to know how he feels about it.  It may be helpful in explaining things that will one day play out on the streets of America.

Oh and beside that I think Hoffa is a white collar thug who pretends to speak for working people and the middle class most of whom want nothing to do with the likes of the him and people like him.  (union membership in this country has been declining for years) His retreat to obscenities is not so much tough talk as it reveals his inability to express himself with dignity.

Now you know what I think about Hoffa!

Default??

Part of the conservative problem is that we allow the liberals to determine the language in which an issue is debated. For example we keep hearing that on August 2nd the United State Government will default. This is not so. We will have more than enough revenue to meet our debt obligations in August. So we will pay the Chinese and the Saudis and all our other foreign investors. If we don't like to pay them we should not have borrowed from them.


After we make our debt payments we will not have enough to pay for everything else to which we have become accustomed. We will have to make choices. We will have to prioritize. This scenario would call for "real" hard choices, but they really need to be made. We borrow about 40% for every dollar we spend. So it would mean a 40% reduction in the spending. Now that is tough choices. But we are going to make them at some point.

You will notice, they do not want a short term deal where the debt ceiling had to be raised again in six or seven months but they want a longer term deal. I heard the President say last night through 2013, code language for after the election. But their is a subtle hint here that none of them have a real interest in cutting spending. They want an increase in the debt ceiling that will get us by for a couple of years when we will need another increase. They have no intention of tying spending to revenues.  I digress.

We will not default on August 2nd. For example. If I had eight credit cards and they were all maxed out and I could not get the creditors to raise the limit or find another creditor that would lend me money. Then some hard choices would have to be made. I would have to pay my debt for it is a contractual obligation. But then I will not likely have the enough revenue to support my standard of living. Therefore I am going to have to do some unpleasant things. Probably sale one of the vehicles. Dispense with the cell phones, Satellite TV, Internet connection, sale my 16' trailer, quit watering the flowers, Turn the thermostat up a couple of more degrees, sale a computer, dispense with the eating out, etc. None of these things sound fun but it would be the reality I have to face.

Now even If I managed to find a creditor who would continue to loan me money eventually the debt along with its interest would simply be more than I could ever hope to pay back in a timely manner. I could sale all of my belongings and not generate enough revenue to pay off the debt. I could turn off the AC, get rid of the house phone, let the light be turned off, etc, and still not have enough. Now I am in default. My unrestrained spending has caught up with me and it ends in financial ruin.

The unrestrained spending in Washington is catching up with us. I believe the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised because it keeps us from having to make really tough choices. But make no mistake about it the day is coming when we will have no choice. How pleasant do you think that is going to be.

Budget Director Won't Answer If WH Would Prioritize Social Security Payments

Budget Director Won't Answer If WH Would Prioritize Social Security Payments

And exchange takes place just before the minute thirty-four mark that goes like this:

CROWLEY: "Would you allow it to happen that those the Social Security checks would not go out? Would you allow that to happen?"

LEW: As the President has indicated, it's not a question of what we allow and what we don't allow"

CROWLEY: "But you get to decide priorities. There will be some money -"

LEW: "There will not be enough money to pay all the bills."

CROWLEY: "Of course not, that's why I'm talking about priorities."

LEW: "I think that once someone gets into the business of trying to ask about setting priorities it misses the question. Which is that it's unacceptable for the United States to be in a place whether it's Social Security recipients, or a soldier or somebody who is just owed money by the government can't be paid because we have not done our job."


This last statement is faulty on so many fronts. If you have a limited amount of money the issue is all about priorities. I agree that it is unacceptable for the United States to be in a place where it does not pay its bills. I happen to believe that we are headed toward financial collapse if we do not get the deficit and debt under control. The administration claims we are facing a doomsday if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. So we are facing a doomsday if we fail to add to the debt??? Really??? Yes, Mr. President it is time to eat your peas. Prioritize the spending with the money we have. You do not get the limit raised on your credit card. Take what you have and make due.

I also agree that the problem is that the federal government has not done its job. It continues to pass budgets that require borrowing. By insisting on an increase in the debt ceiling they are asking permission to continue in their financially promiscuous ways. Mr. Lew's statement highlights the problem. They do not want to cut spending, they want more to spend.

Who doesn't??

Which War?

The President's war policy was characterized as "illegal in its character", "a great misjudgment on the part of the President . . . a clear violation of his duty . . . an impeachable offence."

The President's response:  "The war has been represented as unjust and unnecessary, and as one of aggression on our part upon a weak and injured enemy.  Such erroneous views, though entertained by but few, have been widely and extensively circulated not only at home, but have been spread throughout ____________ and the whole world.  A more effectual means could not have been devised to encourage the enemy and protract the war than to advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them 'aid and comfort'".

About which war were the words spoken:

Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam war
Clinton and Kosovo
Bush and Iraqi
Obama and Lybia

It was none of the above.  It was the Mexican American War 1846 and 1847.

The complaints against the President's war policy were leveled by Senator Daniel Webster leader of the Whig party.

The President was James K. Polk, Democrat.

President Polk's use of the phrase "aid and comfort" which by the way was in quotation marks in his speech was a subtle way to tie those who opposed the war to the Constitutional definition of treason.  The administration ultimately backed away from an outright accusation of treason by making a distinction between overt acts of treason and what they called "moral treason".  The idea of "moral treason' was an epithet that appeared some thirty years earlier in relation to the war of 1812.  It was an accusation that was used against those who opposed the war of 1812.

Point?  Nothing really has changed all that much.  The names are different, some of the political parties are different, but the arguments remain the same.  Those who oppose the war are treasonous and those who initiate and execute the war or doing so with ulterior motives and unjustly and at bare minimum is a serious lapse in judgment.

The Presumption Of Innocence

Ok, It has been a while since I have blogged here and it may not be wise to step where angels fear to trod.  But here it goes.....

Caylee Anthony is dead.  Casey Anthony was acquitted today of all charges related to the death of her daughter.

It is easy in a case like this one that is so publicly paraded for so long for people to become emotionally involved in the outcome especially when children are involved.  I understand!  But if justice is to be served then we must not be driven by emotion.  We cannot forget or ignore the cornerstones of our justice system.

Government is powerful.  It has the power to accuse and imprison and in some States take life.  This is a power that is dangerous and must have checks upon it.  In our nation we have collectively put the burden of proof on the State.  That is where it rightly belongs.  There are several important components to this burden.

The first of which is the presumption of innocence.  Being accused is not the same as being found guilty.  Be a bad person is not the same as being found guilty of a particular crime.  Being indited is not the same as being found guilty.  Being guilty of one crime is not grounds to be convicted of another crime.  When the State brings a charge against a citizen it is presumed that the citizen is innocent.  Do we really want it any other way??

The citizen being presumed innocent, the State has the burden of proof in a criminal trial to prove a particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  The State brings a charge and then has to convince a grand jury that there is enough evidence to go to trial.  But enough evidence to go to trial is not necessarily enough evidence to gain a conviction.  Casey Anthony did not have to prove she was innocent.  The State had to prove she was guilty of a particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  Casey Anthony did not have to prove what happened.  The State had to prove what happened.  Casey Anthony did not have to prove anything.  The State had to prove!

They don't have to convince everyone, just twelve jurors.  And though only twelve they have to convince all twelve.  The verdict has to be unanimous as it ought to be.  Only one person has to have a reasonable doubt to hang a jury and this is as it ought to be.  These realities show the burden of proof to be on the State when they set themselves to deprive a citizen of their civil liberties or life.

There is something amiss if the prosecution cannot remove reasonable doubt from even one of the twelve.  These twelve people were just ordinary citizens like you and me with one exception.  They were in the Court Room every day of the trial.  They heard every witness, saw every piece of evidence, were able to see Casey Anthony's every reaction.  They heard every question and answer.  They heard all the expert witnesses.  They heard the family testify.  They heard the objections both the ones that were over-ruled and the ones that were sustained.  In deliberation they were able to discuss freely alone with no one else in the room.  Not judge, not lawyer, not bailiff, and not the accused.  They were able to discuss what each other were thinking.  They were able to raise question with each other and challenge the conclusions of each other.  And with all that in less than ten hours they came back with a not guilty verdict on all three of the most serious charges.

The prosecution could not convince one beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey had committed murder????  The general population convicted her through media accounts while the twelve jurors who heard all the evidence found her not guilty.

I have served on a jury before.  And we found a man guilty of aggravated sexual assault of his three year old daughter.  We sentenced him to 99 years in prison.  I suppose he is there today.  My experience is that all twelve of us took our responsibilities very seriously.  We understood what was at stake.  There had been a crime committed against a little girl, the question was did her Dad do it.  If not and we convicted him there would be a man in prison for 99 years who was innocent, and someone else who had committed the crime still roaming free.  While I would have hated to set him free had he been guilty I also would have hated to sentence him if he had been innocent.  I think about that man sometimes and I have a clear conscience about the vote I cast in that deliberation room.  I have a clear conscience because the Brazoria County District Attorney's Office proved it to me beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do not know if Casey Anthony is guilty.  A finding of not guilty does not mean she is innocent.  It does mean the Prosecutor could not convince beyond a reasonable doubt even one of the twelve that she was guilty of the crime with which she had been charged.  If they could not convince even one, she should go free!  Either she is innocent, or there was not sufficient evidence to convict, or the evidence was poorly presented and argued.

We all tend to think she is guilty because of what the news media told us.  Twelve jurors believe she is not guilty because of what they heard in a court of law.  I give more credence to the latter than the former.

This is why we have due process in this Country and it is what makes us great and it is one of the blessings of citizenship.

Waging War!

Exodus 15:3 - The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

The Lord "is" a man of war.  It is not simply that he "was" a man of war.  It is not simply that he "will be" a man of war.  He "is" a man of war.  Now, I know this makes some people uncomfortable.  They don't like to consider this reality because it is not in keeping with the warm, fuzzy little God that they have erected in their own minds.  Not only does the Scripture state that the LORD is a man of war it provides a wealth of testimony to that end.

When Israel was a theocracy they often waged war at God's command.  Often times the Lord's instructions related to these military campaigns is enough to make the modern mind cringe.  1 Samuel 15:3 is just a sample.

At the culmination of the age the LORD will wage war against the nations of the earth.  See: Revelation 19:11-21  In this passage we learn that the LORD will:

     in righteousness judge and make war
     he is clothed in a vesture dipped in blood
     reference is made to the armies in heaven
     out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations
     he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God
     the fowls of the air are invited to feast on the flesh of men of war

The United States has lost the ability to wage war.  This is not meant to disparage the military.  I still believe they can "whip" any other power on earth with God's help.  Unfortunately the political apparatus in this nation is bound hand and foot to a philosophy that dictates that we wage "nice" war.  If it is "nice" it is not war.  If it is war it is not "nice".  Sherman stated it plainly when he said, "War is hell."  For the Bible believer the hyperbole is over the top, but the point is well taken.  There is nothing pleasant about war.  War is dangerous and bloody work.  When it ceases to be that it ceases to be effective.

Consider the following:
We have been in a stalemate in Korea for about 60 years now.
We lost in Vietnam.
Though there was a big fanfare a few months back about the troops leaving Iraqi, troops are still there and probably will be for years to come.
How long will we be in Afghanistan?
We have strategically brought about a stalemate in Lybia.

None of this would have been necessary had we sent the military to war and told them to win, defeat the enemy, crush them, destroy them, humble them, kill them, and leave them powerless and totally submitted to our will.

If we are not willing to fight war on these terms and with these objectives we probably should not launch the first Tomahawk or fly the first sortie.  In recent decades we keep hearing talk about exit strategy.  YOU DON'T GO TO WAR TO GET OUT BUT TO WIN!  Winning is the only objective, it is the exit strategy!  If we have to go to war we end it on our terms or it does not end.

If we are not willing to fight a war like that then we don't really want to fight a war and if we don't really want to fight we should not commit American boys and resources to the effort.

In WWII we fire bombed whole cities in Germany and Japan and ultimately dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and we won.  But innocent civilians were killed.  Herein lies the problem.  Once you have identified an enemy that needs to be defeated on the battle field the whole people are the enemy.  If all of them are not then none of them really are.  Even the citizens are providing the tax base and often the moral and patriotic fervor to pursue the war.  The citizens are going to work in the munitions plants and feeding the soldiers and sending their boys to kill Americans.  Fight them "tooth and nail"!  Fight the war and be done with it.  Instead we are increasingly opting for protracted skirmishes which no one really wins and the people end up hating us.  America has a fairly good track record of winning over our enemies after crushing them in war.  We have a terrible track record of winning over our enemies after fighting them just enough to make them mad.  We should fight right on through the "mad" stage all the way to the "glad" stage.

You say that sounds like nasty business.   IT IS!  Which is the reason we should not go to war except under the most compelling of reasons.  We have to get out of this mentality of making everything our business when it is not.  And.....when it is we need to give them the business.

The President goes to Congress and asks for a Declaration of War according to the Constitution.  Congress declares war.  We don't check with others to make sure they are OK with it.  We send an overwhelming force and crush the enemy.

General Patton said, We are going to kill the enemy and cut their guts out and use them to grease the tracks of our tanks.  We may turn away in horror at such a thought, but this is the kind of Generals that win wars.

If we would get back to winning instead of looking for exit strategies the world would be a safer place.  We need to have the determined authority of the parent that says to their child, "Don't make me come over there."  And.....when we say it they don't.  And if we have to they are sorry we did.

Exodus 15:3 - The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.