Freedom fighters unite! The damn government is trying to force us to use CFL light bulbs instead of incandescent ones. It’s an outrage. I said outrage, not outage. It’s just another example of creeping socialism that is taking over the country. First it was death panels, now its light panels. Every time the government thinks, an oxymoron if there ever was one, it comes up with yet another regulation to stifle freedom. Now it’s the requirement to use CFL lights because they supposedly save energy. What a crock.
Just because CFLs last ten times longer and use one fifth the energy an incandescent does doesn’t mean they are more efficient. It means they are weak, pusillanimous, pussy-footing sources of light compared to the light bulb our own Thomas Edison invented. If God had wanted a CFL light bulb, he would have made Edison make one in the first place.
I don’t care if a coal plant has to work harder and give off more mercury to light an incandescent. Taking off the top of a mountain to feed a coal plant to light a man’s light bulb and throw off a little mercury in the process just helps the economy, creates jobs, keeps other professionals busy such as doctors who take care of the workers with black lung and such, and the whole economy keeps humming right along just fine. Mountain topping also levels the playing field, which you liberals are always yakking about.
Let’s be reasonable. The CFL has mercury as well, but it can’t compete with the coal plant that puts out 4.65 times more mercury per incandescent equivalent than is contained in that wimpy CFL. Hell, there isn’t enough mercury in a CFL to kill a cat let alone a human being. The CFL just does not have the stuff an incandescent does. If you want a powerful bulb, you go with an incandescent.
Besides, back in the day when men were men and men could swear generously, one of the best of them was Mark Twain. One time he took after an editor and laid into him something fierce. He called him a “quadrilateral, astronomical, incandescent son-of-a-bitch.” Now, did he use the word florescent? Hell no. He picked out the hottest words he could muster and one of them was incandescent.
I rest my case.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Bully Pulp Pit
Congress is back in session. The Republicans are in charge. Instead of focusing on job creation and budget balancing, they go after the weakest thing they can find and try to squash it because part of its work flies in the face of one of their cherished principles: the rights of the unborn. They are busy swatting flies while the lion roars.
Funding for Planned Parenthood is on the block because it pays for poor people’s abortions. Better to have a child grow up to find out his father was a rapist. Better he grow up in a slum with a single parent who did not want him in the first place. That’s bound to have a good outcome. There may be occasional exceptions, but I will bet there are many more drug dealers than Lions Club members coming out of that scenario. Ensuring unwanted unborn rights and removing the rights of rape victims is small ball with little risk because the oppressed in this case have no political or economic clout. They are usually poor.
It seems that no matter what party is in power, there is a tendency to try for victories over small issues rather than go after big game. Health care was not exactly small game, but it was in comparison to the budget deficit, the recession, and job creation. The form of health care that eventually passed was somewhat flawed, but it still amounted to an attempt to get more comprehensive about health care in America. The way we had gone about it in the past was obsolete. We had to go in a different direction. We did, but not in an effectively sustainable one. The healthcare baby may be worth saving, but the bath water needs cleaning up.
Maybe political bodies and politicians themselves are like some college football programs that begin the season by playing some patsies before getting to the tough league schedule. Or maybe they never get to the tough schedule because they are too busy picking on small adversaries and claiming victory the way a bully does. Planned Parenthood is a small adversary. So are illegal immigrants small adversaries. And so are small town foreclosure sufferers.
A short alert by Freakonomics in the February 4, 2011 New York Times cited a study that links negligent or inattentive fatherhood to a propensity for bullying. Apparently the study points to the role of a child’s perception as to whether or not he or she is being paid enough attention by the father. If a child feels neglected by the father, he or she will have a greater tendency to bully.
If this is true, I wonder how many politicians, particularly Republican politicians, have been the victims of neglectful fathers. If their fathers were so busy making a living or getting rich that they did not spend time with their children, this phenomenon could explain the mean-spiritedness that characterizes some politicians in congress and in state legislatures today. They would rather pick on the little guy than go after big game such as the deficit and unemployment.
Whatever the case, I wish politicians would show a little more courage and go after the big issues rather than beat to a pulp the little issues and little guys that already live on the margin. Beating up little guys takes no courage at all.
Funding for Planned Parenthood is on the block because it pays for poor people’s abortions. Better to have a child grow up to find out his father was a rapist. Better he grow up in a slum with a single parent who did not want him in the first place. That’s bound to have a good outcome. There may be occasional exceptions, but I will bet there are many more drug dealers than Lions Club members coming out of that scenario. Ensuring unwanted unborn rights and removing the rights of rape victims is small ball with little risk because the oppressed in this case have no political or economic clout. They are usually poor.
It seems that no matter what party is in power, there is a tendency to try for victories over small issues rather than go after big game. Health care was not exactly small game, but it was in comparison to the budget deficit, the recession, and job creation. The form of health care that eventually passed was somewhat flawed, but it still amounted to an attempt to get more comprehensive about health care in America. The way we had gone about it in the past was obsolete. We had to go in a different direction. We did, but not in an effectively sustainable one. The healthcare baby may be worth saving, but the bath water needs cleaning up.
Maybe political bodies and politicians themselves are like some college football programs that begin the season by playing some patsies before getting to the tough league schedule. Or maybe they never get to the tough schedule because they are too busy picking on small adversaries and claiming victory the way a bully does. Planned Parenthood is a small adversary. So are illegal immigrants small adversaries. And so are small town foreclosure sufferers.
A short alert by Freakonomics in the February 4, 2011 New York Times cited a study that links negligent or inattentive fatherhood to a propensity for bullying. Apparently the study points to the role of a child’s perception as to whether or not he or she is being paid enough attention by the father. If a child feels neglected by the father, he or she will have a greater tendency to bully.
If this is true, I wonder how many politicians, particularly Republican politicians, have been the victims of neglectful fathers. If their fathers were so busy making a living or getting rich that they did not spend time with their children, this phenomenon could explain the mean-spiritedness that characterizes some politicians in congress and in state legislatures today. They would rather pick on the little guy than go after big game such as the deficit and unemployment.
Whatever the case, I wish politicians would show a little more courage and go after the big issues rather than beat to a pulp the little issues and little guys that already live on the margin. Beating up little guys takes no courage at all.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Libertarians: Live Free AND Die
I get a kick out of libertarians, and it’s not where kicks are well received. Libertarians preach rugged individualism and self-sufficiency and rant against Big Government like there’s no tomorrow…and in their view there will be no tomorrow as long as BG gets in the way of individual freedom.
The latest iteration of their uproar over BG is their call to repeal Obamacare because it requires everyone to buy health insurance. One of their representatives, a federal judge in eastern Virginia, recently ruled that requiring health insurance is unconstitutional. Libertarians can take care of themselves, thank you, and no government should be able to require a person to buy anything he doesn’t want. The problem with this thinking is that when the libertarian gets sick enough to go to a hospital, unless he has a lot of spare cash in his mattress, we the people who do buy insurance end up paying higher premiums because the cost of the libertarian’s stay in the hospital is spread among us premium payers. In other words, the libertarian ends up mooching off the rest of us.
Another pet peeve of the libertarians is gun control. However, thanks to them and their great lobby, the NRA, we have loose and easy gun laws in this country. This looseness enables Mexican drug cartels to sneak across the border in Texas or Arizona, but particularly in Texas, and buy all the semi-automatics and ammunition they need to add to the 30,000 of corpses they have already strewn around northern Mexico. Our libertarian-inspired gun laws or lack thereof have enabled drug cartels to assume such power in Mexico that the Mexican government can’t begin to gain control of its own country. No wonder Mexicans want to come to the United States. We have made Mexico unsafe for habitation, thanks to our libertarian gun laws. But that’s just part of the story.
Of course our libertarian attitude toward drug use in the U.S. has also provided the funds for the cartels to be able to buy the weapons to kill their people, but that would be pointing the finger at a whole different species of libertarians who think they ought to be able to ingest any substance they feel like and to hell with the law and the social and economic cost to the rest of the law-abiding public. Drug users are unwittingly willing to sacrifice Mexican lives and the health of American culture for another selfish hit toward personal oblivion. It is their liberty to do so, they insist.
But maybe there is a silver lining in this selfish behavior as other libertarians see it. If the drug-addled libertarians keep buying drugs, most of which come from Mexico, and the cartels then can buy more guns from the U.S., America’s trade imbalance is improved. Moreover, if the cartels help keep down the population in Mexico, we can make those libertarians in Arizona happy because there will be fewer Mexicans crossing the border to take American jobs. It’s a win-win for everyone, except Mexicans. But who cares about them. After all, the libertarian motto, which is featured on the New Hampshire license plate, is “Live Free or Die.” Translated, it means we’ll live free and you’ll die. But that’s your problem, not mine. After all, we’re all libertarians and should look after ourselves. That’s what “real America” is all about.
Then again, if we go back to the libertarian healthcare issue, why not let them have their way and not require health insurance. However, when they show up at the hospital with a life-threatening injury or illness, make them pay up front for any anticipated costs. It may take a while to assess their situation, but they can simply plunk down a $100,000 - $500,000 deposit, depending on the severity of the case, and any surplus left after service will be returned to them. If the libertarian can’t produce the deposit, that’s too bad. He can go take care of himself. In that case, the motto shifts to “Live Free and Die. But a “real” libertarian wouldn’t have it any other way.
The latest iteration of their uproar over BG is their call to repeal Obamacare because it requires everyone to buy health insurance. One of their representatives, a federal judge in eastern Virginia, recently ruled that requiring health insurance is unconstitutional. Libertarians can take care of themselves, thank you, and no government should be able to require a person to buy anything he doesn’t want. The problem with this thinking is that when the libertarian gets sick enough to go to a hospital, unless he has a lot of spare cash in his mattress, we the people who do buy insurance end up paying higher premiums because the cost of the libertarian’s stay in the hospital is spread among us premium payers. In other words, the libertarian ends up mooching off the rest of us.
Another pet peeve of the libertarians is gun control. However, thanks to them and their great lobby, the NRA, we have loose and easy gun laws in this country. This looseness enables Mexican drug cartels to sneak across the border in Texas or Arizona, but particularly in Texas, and buy all the semi-automatics and ammunition they need to add to the 30,000 of corpses they have already strewn around northern Mexico. Our libertarian-inspired gun laws or lack thereof have enabled drug cartels to assume such power in Mexico that the Mexican government can’t begin to gain control of its own country. No wonder Mexicans want to come to the United States. We have made Mexico unsafe for habitation, thanks to our libertarian gun laws. But that’s just part of the story.
Of course our libertarian attitude toward drug use in the U.S. has also provided the funds for the cartels to be able to buy the weapons to kill their people, but that would be pointing the finger at a whole different species of libertarians who think they ought to be able to ingest any substance they feel like and to hell with the law and the social and economic cost to the rest of the law-abiding public. Drug users are unwittingly willing to sacrifice Mexican lives and the health of American culture for another selfish hit toward personal oblivion. It is their liberty to do so, they insist.
But maybe there is a silver lining in this selfish behavior as other libertarians see it. If the drug-addled libertarians keep buying drugs, most of which come from Mexico, and the cartels then can buy more guns from the U.S., America’s trade imbalance is improved. Moreover, if the cartels help keep down the population in Mexico, we can make those libertarians in Arizona happy because there will be fewer Mexicans crossing the border to take American jobs. It’s a win-win for everyone, except Mexicans. But who cares about them. After all, the libertarian motto, which is featured on the New Hampshire license plate, is “Live Free or Die.” Translated, it means we’ll live free and you’ll die. But that’s your problem, not mine. After all, we’re all libertarians and should look after ourselves. That’s what “real America” is all about.
Then again, if we go back to the libertarian healthcare issue, why not let them have their way and not require health insurance. However, when they show up at the hospital with a life-threatening injury or illness, make them pay up front for any anticipated costs. It may take a while to assess their situation, but they can simply plunk down a $100,000 - $500,000 deposit, depending on the severity of the case, and any surplus left after service will be returned to them. If the libertarian can’t produce the deposit, that’s too bad. He can go take care of himself. In that case, the motto shifts to “Live Free and Die. But a “real” libertarian wouldn’t have it any other way.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Dream Act
The Dream Act is about to be shot down by the lame duck congress with the excuse that it takes away jobs from existing citizens and will cost too much to implement when we are looking for ways to cut the deficit. The argument FOR the Dream Act is essentially this:
Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.
The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.*
I have a dream. It’s bigger than The Dream Act sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Dick Durbin. Why not make all teenagers apply for American citizenship as the privilege it should be rather than the natural right it is now? Of all the entitlements that cost the U.S. taxpayer money, the entitlement to citizenship is the greatest. If all residents of the U.S. were required to apply for citizenship the way they have to apply, say, for a driver’s license, we would be giving them the opportunity to earn citizenship rather than merely letting them take it for granted.
I know, it would be a radical idea no country has ever tried, but just think of what it would do to improve the work ethic and ambition among that portion of today’s youth that is lethargic, directionless, and dilly-dallying.
Here are some of the gains we would make as a society:
1. Education would take on more meaning for more students.
2. The military would have a greater and better educated supply of applicants.
3. The labor force would develop the skills industry needs to become competitive.
4. People would become more committed and informed citizens.
5. We would all truly become a nation of immigrants in that we would earn our place.
6. The sense of entitlement index would fall.
7. Productivity would rise.
8. People would be taught early on to “earn” their way.
9. People would learn to assume responsibility much earlier.
10. Citizens would also be more apt to take civic responsibility seriously as well.
The problem with this plan, you might say, is what to do with those who do not qualify. I would suggest that deporting them is not an option, unless we can find a country that would take them off our hands. That’s unlikely, unless we pay some desperate country to take them, but that won't help the long-range need to lower the national deficit, although getting rid of these slackers would cost us less in the long run. Right now the status quo has them in our midst anyway, except they are granted all the rights and privileges of citizenship. By denying them those rights unless they earn them, we would be giving them an incentive to seek citizenship or otherwise be temporarily disenfranchised in ALL respects.
When they turn 19 and have failed to graduate from high school, draft them into boarding “prep” schools and finish the job of educating them by addressing their academic deficiencies and providing the discipline and structure that they and their families did not while they were in regular high school. If this does not work, draft them into a military/community service corps that rebuilds America’s infrastructure on an ongoing basis. Make it a kind of compulsory job corps which they complete when they have their high school diploma. Any of these alternatives will be less expensive than prison, although those will continue to be needed for true criminals.
If only we had an Australia as the British did back in the 18th Century. We could ship them all off to a remote land and be done with them. (Not incidentally, that experiment turned petty criminals into successful pioneers). However, because of the lack of available real estate on the planet in the 21st Century, we will have to deal with the fallout ourselves. I welcome suggestions beyond what I have offered.
Limiting this Dream Act opportunity to a relatively small number of undocumented immigrants seems both unfair to others who might benefit from it and unfair to the productive citizenry of the United States. We need to be more inclusive and draw from a much larger pool that already is bequeathed their citizenship without lifting a finger. It is time to fulfill the dream of JFK who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
As an educator of at-risk youth for the last seven years of my 39 year secondary school career, I know how motivated undocumented youth can be. Many of the truly successful students I oversaw were undocumented. Unfortunately, their citizenship path is currently blocked by law. I know they would make models citizens, but currently we are shooting ourselves in the foot by denying them a path to citizenship while letting less willing youth automatically qualify by birth. That’s why I propose a much greater campaign to transform more American youth into the kind of citizens we need and want.
*http://dreamact.info/
Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans.
The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation ‒ pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] ‒ that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service.*
I have a dream. It’s bigger than The Dream Act sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Dick Durbin. Why not make all teenagers apply for American citizenship as the privilege it should be rather than the natural right it is now? Of all the entitlements that cost the U.S. taxpayer money, the entitlement to citizenship is the greatest. If all residents of the U.S. were required to apply for citizenship the way they have to apply, say, for a driver’s license, we would be giving them the opportunity to earn citizenship rather than merely letting them take it for granted.
I know, it would be a radical idea no country has ever tried, but just think of what it would do to improve the work ethic and ambition among that portion of today’s youth that is lethargic, directionless, and dilly-dallying.
Here are some of the gains we would make as a society:
1. Education would take on more meaning for more students.
2. The military would have a greater and better educated supply of applicants.
3. The labor force would develop the skills industry needs to become competitive.
4. People would become more committed and informed citizens.
5. We would all truly become a nation of immigrants in that we would earn our place.
6. The sense of entitlement index would fall.
7. Productivity would rise.
8. People would be taught early on to “earn” their way.
9. People would learn to assume responsibility much earlier.
10. Citizens would also be more apt to take civic responsibility seriously as well.
The problem with this plan, you might say, is what to do with those who do not qualify. I would suggest that deporting them is not an option, unless we can find a country that would take them off our hands. That’s unlikely, unless we pay some desperate country to take them, but that won't help the long-range need to lower the national deficit, although getting rid of these slackers would cost us less in the long run. Right now the status quo has them in our midst anyway, except they are granted all the rights and privileges of citizenship. By denying them those rights unless they earn them, we would be giving them an incentive to seek citizenship or otherwise be temporarily disenfranchised in ALL respects.
When they turn 19 and have failed to graduate from high school, draft them into boarding “prep” schools and finish the job of educating them by addressing their academic deficiencies and providing the discipline and structure that they and their families did not while they were in regular high school. If this does not work, draft them into a military/community service corps that rebuilds America’s infrastructure on an ongoing basis. Make it a kind of compulsory job corps which they complete when they have their high school diploma. Any of these alternatives will be less expensive than prison, although those will continue to be needed for true criminals.
If only we had an Australia as the British did back in the 18th Century. We could ship them all off to a remote land and be done with them. (Not incidentally, that experiment turned petty criminals into successful pioneers). However, because of the lack of available real estate on the planet in the 21st Century, we will have to deal with the fallout ourselves. I welcome suggestions beyond what I have offered.
Limiting this Dream Act opportunity to a relatively small number of undocumented immigrants seems both unfair to others who might benefit from it and unfair to the productive citizenry of the United States. We need to be more inclusive and draw from a much larger pool that already is bequeathed their citizenship without lifting a finger. It is time to fulfill the dream of JFK who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
As an educator of at-risk youth for the last seven years of my 39 year secondary school career, I know how motivated undocumented youth can be. Many of the truly successful students I oversaw were undocumented. Unfortunately, their citizenship path is currently blocked by law. I know they would make models citizens, but currently we are shooting ourselves in the foot by denying them a path to citizenship while letting less willing youth automatically qualify by birth. That’s why I propose a much greater campaign to transform more American youth into the kind of citizens we need and want.
*http://dreamact.info/
Monday, November 8, 2010
Keeping Up with the Joneses
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-Emma Lazarus
We, the people, have this expectation that by now we should have this have-have not issue sorted out by now. The truth is American life has become so compartmentalized, gated, isolated, stratified, segmented, and cocooned, two statues within close proximity of each other in New York City can have two very different takes on the concept of opportunity. I am referring to the Charging Bull on Wall Street and the Statue of Liberty in the New York harbor. The practices of Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman-Sachs, and the poetry of Emma Lazarus are worlds apart. The land of opportunity has become the land for opportunists. The opportunists, if given a chance, will own everything; we, the people, will own nothing.
At this point in American history the Wall Street opportunists see developing markets abroad, cheap labor abroad, and could care less about what happens to the American people. The American people have nothing to do with Wall Street's self-interests unless the American people can make them richer. When they can't, the Wall Streeters and their ilk turn elsewhere. Their loyalty is to their own increasing wealth. It's all about making money, never mind the tired and poor left behind.
Yes, a segment of America has gotten fat, tired, lazy, and entitled. Yes, keeping up with the Joneses has turned into keeping up with the Dow Joneses. We also became a vigilante consumer culture: buy now, ask questions later. The poor, who have nothing but TV to inform them, are conditioned to buy-buy-buy even when they have no purchasing power. However, there are those who have tried their best and still have failed. They are the ones who need help from somewhere.
If our culture and its chief agency, namely government, could better distribute opportunity rather than wealth, that would go a long way toward leveling the playing field. Affirmative correction has done that for some individuals, but the effort has to be orchestrated for whole communities, not just individuals. It does no good to remove a few rough diamonds and polish them, except for the diamonds themselves.
Teach for America is a good start. If businesses can be given tax incentives to hire and train Americans rather than ship jobs overseas, that would be an effective way out. But to rely on more taxation as the means of redistributing wealth simply won't sell. The rich hold the purse-strings of the economy as well as the government, Democrats and Republicans alike. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Therefore, tax break incentives to create and maintain jobs in America are the pragmatic way out of this burgeoning inequality.
Then again, not taxing the rich more than we currently do will leave the growing national deficit a terrible liability for our children’s future. Sooner or later, we'll have to raise taxes. Since 2% of the population earns 24% of the wealth, they should shoulder 24% of the tax burden. Currently they fall far short of that.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-Emma Lazarus
We, the people, have this expectation that by now we should have this have-have not issue sorted out by now. The truth is American life has become so compartmentalized, gated, isolated, stratified, segmented, and cocooned, two statues within close proximity of each other in New York City can have two very different takes on the concept of opportunity. I am referring to the Charging Bull on Wall Street and the Statue of Liberty in the New York harbor. The practices of Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman-Sachs, and the poetry of Emma Lazarus are worlds apart. The land of opportunity has become the land for opportunists. The opportunists, if given a chance, will own everything; we, the people, will own nothing.
At this point in American history the Wall Street opportunists see developing markets abroad, cheap labor abroad, and could care less about what happens to the American people. The American people have nothing to do with Wall Street's self-interests unless the American people can make them richer. When they can't, the Wall Streeters and their ilk turn elsewhere. Their loyalty is to their own increasing wealth. It's all about making money, never mind the tired and poor left behind.
Yes, a segment of America has gotten fat, tired, lazy, and entitled. Yes, keeping up with the Joneses has turned into keeping up with the Dow Joneses. We also became a vigilante consumer culture: buy now, ask questions later. The poor, who have nothing but TV to inform them, are conditioned to buy-buy-buy even when they have no purchasing power. However, there are those who have tried their best and still have failed. They are the ones who need help from somewhere.
If our culture and its chief agency, namely government, could better distribute opportunity rather than wealth, that would go a long way toward leveling the playing field. Affirmative correction has done that for some individuals, but the effort has to be orchestrated for whole communities, not just individuals. It does no good to remove a few rough diamonds and polish them, except for the diamonds themselves.
Teach for America is a good start. If businesses can be given tax incentives to hire and train Americans rather than ship jobs overseas, that would be an effective way out. But to rely on more taxation as the means of redistributing wealth simply won't sell. The rich hold the purse-strings of the economy as well as the government, Democrats and Republicans alike. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Therefore, tax break incentives to create and maintain jobs in America are the pragmatic way out of this burgeoning inequality.
Then again, not taxing the rich more than we currently do will leave the growing national deficit a terrible liability for our children’s future. Sooner or later, we'll have to raise taxes. Since 2% of the population earns 24% of the wealth, they should shoulder 24% of the tax burden. Currently they fall far short of that.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Trickle, Trickle, Little Drip
Trickle, trickle, little drip;
All I want is just a sip;
Tip the pot and you’ll be hip;
Oh a drop to touch my lip.
Wall Street, let me earn some cash;
Let me forage through your trash;
All my dreams have turned to ash;
Government’s fault there was a crash.
Throw the tea into the bay;
Keep the taxes low, you say;
Help the rich to never pay;
Keep them rich, come what may.
Wear your cute tri-cornered hat;
Austerity is where it’s at;
Drink their Kool-Aid; chew their fat;
Will you never smell a rat?
So keep the tempest teapot strong;
And keep that sense that you belong;
Perhaps you’ll wake before too long
And figure out that you were wrong.
All I want is just a sip;
Tip the pot and you’ll be hip;
Oh a drop to touch my lip.
Wall Street, let me earn some cash;
Let me forage through your trash;
All my dreams have turned to ash;
Government’s fault there was a crash.
Throw the tea into the bay;
Keep the taxes low, you say;
Help the rich to never pay;
Keep them rich, come what may.
Wear your cute tri-cornered hat;
Austerity is where it’s at;
Drink their Kool-Aid; chew their fat;
Will you never smell a rat?
So keep the tempest teapot strong;
And keep that sense that you belong;
Perhaps you’ll wake before too long
And figure out that you were wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
