What do the Cold War and the Fiscal Cliff have in common?

During forty four of cold war the strategy was to assure an outcome so disastrous to both sides than nobody would be stupid enough to cross the line. It seems our political parties have tried using a similar tactics, all hoping that nobody would be stupid enough to allow us to go over the Fiscal Cliff. I wonder what the odds are in Las Vegas; probably about fifty fifty. Of course in the cold war, no one purposely put us in a position that might end in mutual assured mass destruction, but our Congress and President have purposely put us in a position that could well end in economic Armageddon.
Seem a bit masochistic to me since the political consequences on both sides are disastrous; moreover it seems extremely sadistic since even if our elected leaders are willing to commit political Harri-Cari most of us would rather not be handcuffed to their corpse as it flows over Niagara Falls.

We have been talking about the need for extensive tax reform for two decades, yet the 112th Congress elected to "kick the can" and delay a decision on the "Bush tax cuts" with a self imposed expiration date of December 31, 2012. It comes as little surprise that they chose this date since it's a presidential election year, with all the House, and half the Senate up or grabs. The obvious rational was that 1. the election would bring about change in the balance of power and as such one party could get more of what they want.......or 2. A particular incumbent looses and as such has little motivation and nothing to lose during the current lame duck session........or 3. They are all totally ignorant of the fact that this inane game of political chicken is inherently dangerous.......recessions have started that way. I lean toward 1and 2, but 3 is not out of the question.

Some, if not all, of this is semantics, posturing and political gamesmanship. What difference does it make if you gain revenue through raising the marginal rate of the top bracket by 4.5%, or by a reduction of deductions (thus raising effective rates of the same group)? More revenue is more revenue! Well, I'll tell you; the difference is President Obama campaigned on raising the rates on " the top 2%" and by golly he intends to do so. Now, what is the difference in spending reductions as a percent of the previous fiscal year's budget, or a percent of GDP? Well I'll tell you; it depends on what you cut, and who gets hurt most from said cut. If those who are directly in the hurt locker as a result of government spending cuts happen to be YOUR constituents....ouch.....if it's the other guy's.....who cares.

On top of all this, in the summer of 2011, our elected officials failed to reach a compromise on raising the federal debt ceiling. For much the same rational listed before, they "kicked the can own the road" till the exact same date as the tax cuts expire. Add to that the separate "death tax" set to change from a 5million per person exemption to one million, and you realize that Congress has really backed itself into a corner. The inability to reach a resolution in 2011 resulted in a reduction of the United States credit rating from triple A, and a negative reaction by the stock and bond markets world wide. This time, absent a deal, we would face way higher taxes, stifling any economical growth, sequestration, leading to higher unemployment in an already still fragile economy, and a likely recession. I don't know about you guys, but going down that road for no particular reason other than ideology, and political gamesmanship just seems insane.

Both political parties just spent a total of six billion dollars in the last election to remain pretty much status quo. That comes to twenty bucks for every man, woman, and child in America. Wow, they could have just handed out a twenty to each one of us at the polls. Would be another good reason to go vote. Anyway, the joke is on Congress since the balance of power remains the same and how they have to actually do something. Unfortunately, we all could become the punchline......that is if you can consider assured mutual mass destruction......a punchline. Do we really miss the cold war tactics so much as to create our own? Masochism indeed.

A geopolitical economic discussion developed from a response to a joke by Larry the Cable Guy

This is a discussion regarding economic and geopolitical philosophies of the Presidential candidates and Larry the Cable Guy. A friend sent a joke from Larry the Cable Guy which is indeed pretty funny. I must have a bit of pent up Political opinion since a silly joke resulted in the following dialog....

 

EMAIL JOKE FROM A FRIEND:

Subject: : QUOTE OF THE DAY FROM LARRY THE Cable guy

"Even after the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl victory, I have noticed a large number of people, implying with bad jokes and anecdotes, that Loozianna Cajuns ain't smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment. Anybody who would build a city nine feet below sea level, in a hurricane zone, and fill it with Democrats who can't swim is a damn genius".

 

MY RESPONSE:

I must concede to the humor, and I did get a good laugh. However Drew Brees and Co. excluded, the remaining majority of Louisiana is represented by dumb shit, redneck, Larry the cable guy want-a-be, republicans who clearly reside in the 47% of irresponsible, moochers, which Mitt Romney admittedly disdains and does not care about. Even though he and Mr. Ryan will eliminate the very essence of their existence, these idiotic, confused, brain washed, redneck, tea bag sucking, good ol boys will vote for him anyway. Now that my friends proves " that Loozianna Cajuns ain't smart" !!!!!

Sorry Larry, even though you are funny, you are just a dump shit redneck too, and anyone who would adhere to your political opinion is even more stupid.

 

HIS RESPONSE:

you libs don't like that 47% statement. Bottom line is it true, and that is why change is needed so they are not on the govt dole and get on their own two, or one foot! I am part of the 47%, I pay taxes and I work my ass off but generally they send me back as much and or a little more than I pay in, Except 2011, I'm still working on that.I was expecting a $2500 check and got an $1800 bill! ooooooooo:( All in good fun, right?!

Larry would be a better president than that guy who insults the office today.

 

MY RESPONSE:

Now, I am not a fiscal liberal, I am actually a practicing fiscal conservative, and unlike many tea party types, I actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Fact is that Romney and Ryan are not fiscal conservatives, but really, way out there, ideological nut bags with an unrealistic desire to further reduce taxes and not much of a game plan after that. Republicans have recently moved to an ideological place that is so far to the right of main stream as to be ludicrous. Their math is simply flawed. Barrack Obama could have run as a moderate republican 20 years ago and won.

 I am in the 10% that pay 70% of all federal income tax. I add to the national gross domestic product (GDP). I save and invest and have never defaulted on a loan. Now if you get a tax refund equal to or greater than what is deducted from your pay check than you actually do not pay federal income tax and are part of Romney's 47% and as such are a fucking moocher that does not take responsibility for yourself or your family. At least according to Romney! Do you feel entitled to food, a job, a house, health care, higher education? Are you a fucking moocher? Do you not take responsibility for yourself or your family? .......I really don’t think so..... most people in this situation work their ass off to take care of their family and make ends meet, yet Romney includes them in the 47% who don't pay tax and are irresponsible victims.

So it would seem a contradiction that a majority of Romney’s 47 are actually republicans who actually support him. It is actually kind of humorous. I mean, are you actually going to vote for the guy who admittedly doesn't give a shit about you because you are in the 47% moocher class?

As for a total national economic meltdown; it could come to that when you promise to reduce taxes by 20% across the board- an obviously popular idea since nobody really likes to pay taxes- you have to make up the difference somewhere….. Please note that a tax reduction would benefit me more than most since I had an effective rate same as Romney's last year, but I did take all the deductions so mine came in less than 14%....... So how do you offset that income? Well, Mitt says he will close loopholes and deductions but has given absolutely no indication of what loopholes or deductions.....therein lies the problem. Also they would cut current traditional spending on the very things that bolster national economic health. The givens (accepted by both Lib and Con economists) in this group are education, infrastructure, research and development and the social safety net that allows Capitalism to function by allowing the common working class dude to ride the inherent swings of the free market system without freaking out and disrupting the system.

This, my dear friends, is a recipe for disaster. As the cuts in the very necessities of American greatness will stifle long term growth, the tax cuts, and resulting short term reduction in fed income will surly impair our ability to pay down the National deficit. Our current debtors are over 50% foreign (can you spell China) and those dudes are going to start demanding more interest return on their loans to us (because sooner or later they will question our ability to pay). When that day comes, you will see economic meltdown that will make 2008-09 look like a boom time. Mitt's math and policies (at least what we can glean from the rather guarded candidate) might bolster investment (due to retaining or reducing capital gain and dividend tax rates) and reinforce the current market rally, but in the long run, probably simply won’t work. That is unless you do happen to be extremely rich. Unfortunately most of the 47% deadbeats that he has written off are actually the guys who support him. Is this because they are brainwashed and are not intelligent or sophisticated enough to understand basic macro economics?

 

So, I actually think my comment regarding "These idiotic, confused, brain washed, redneck, tea bag sucking, good ol boys" was accurate.

 

HIS RESPONSE:

Ya the budget is an issue, a total collapse of the US budget probably would be bad, not sure how it would directly affect me, considering my current budget is a collapse anyway! Re-elect=collapse.

My real concern about this election is National Security. I do not feel safe with this guy in charge, he is too soft.

There are a host of other issues I could write a book on what he sucks at, but, national security is why we really can't afford to re-elect him. We will see more terror bloodshed on our shores if he gets 4 more. Imagine a Tank pulling around the south side of your house to blow up shit in the lake or air from your bluff, wouldn't that be cool!! Not far off unfortunately.

Iranian subs making waves on the ski course, Awful!, worse yet, having them tear out the cables of the course!

OK the ski part probably would not be my priority at that point but the rest of what I say is way more possible than the general population knows with a weak inexperienced person in control, and that is due to the liberal bias media. The mass of the population does not know the truth, would not have thought to include you in that but I also understand there are a few directly personal and can affect you directly issues.

Love you too

MY RESPONSE:

Now, to address foreign policy:

Of course I too am concerned with national security. I do believe though that national security does not come from a wall behind which we live or a line of tanks, fences, and army dudes to keep everybody that might do us harm out. Nor does it come from traipsing around the globe beating up on countries we don’t quite agree with and enforcing our will, whatever that may be at the time.

You state “with a weak inexperienced person in control" we are in danger. I would ask what experience Mitt Romney has regarding International diplomacy and foreign policy. A review of his bio reveals zip, nadda, no experience what so ever...Hummm. In fact, he is a bozo who shoots (his mouth off anyway) first and asks questions and seeks the facts later. He was quoted as saying Russia was our biggest current threat....WTF??? What about Islamic extreme terrorism? What about Asia...AKA China? What about a nuclear armed North Korea, or Iran?

I will admit to feeling the “let’s go get those bastards” kind of support for George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In hind sight I have to admit that my enthusiastic support for unilateral military intervention by the U.S military was overzealous. While sending troops into Afghanistan and the initial progress by special forces and the local Northern Alliance were positive, the  unilateral invasion of Iraq is probably going to go down in history as a big mistake and a U.S. military blunder.

The contrast between the killing of Bin Laden and the intervention in Libya illustrates the Obama Doctrine. In the former case, Obama personally managed a unilateral use of force, which involved a raid on Pakistani territory. In the latter case, where national interests were not as clear, he waited until the Arab League and the UN had adopted resolutions that provided the legitimacy needed to ensure the right soft-power narrative, and then shared the leadership of the hard-power operation with NATO allies.

This kind of pragmatic engagement is personally appealing to me. You may call me a pussy, but I think I would prefer more spread of American influence through the use of "Soft power", economic incentives (or disincentives ) and attraction. I tend to lean toward a lighter military footprint, combined with a willingness to use force unilaterally when American security interests are directly involved; reliance on coalitions to deal with global problems that do not directly threaten US security; and “a rebalancing away from the Middle East quagmires toward the continent of greatest promise in the future – Asia.” This is the basic tenet of Obama's foreign doctrine, and personally I regard it as more effective and more economically sustainable that the George W, cowboy, hard-power, big fat bully, approach that Mitt Romney seems to aspire to. At least he has taken that kind of “Hard guy” position regarding the recent Muslim uprisings and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. So when the White House sends a message condemning the stupid video (which is allegedly the impetus for this attack) and condemning the attack and killing of four Americans, this in Romney’s mind is pussy, kowtowing to Muslim extremists. Are you kidding me...Just WTF are you going to do Mitt? Get Arnold, Sylvester, Bruce, and Clint to head over there with you to kick some ass? Get real pal!!

Now, as far as any State sponsored military engagement, I am not so worried. We could cut all defense spending in half (I am in no way suggesting we do that, nor is the current administration) and still spend more on military then every other country in the world combined. Our Navy alone has a battle fleet tonnage that is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service, two under construction and one in reserve. So that's 14 and the rest of the world has 4.

In his 2000 presidential bid, George W. Bush famously promised “compassionate conservatism” and a humble foreign policy, but governed very differently, as when he decided to invade Iraq. Likewise, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson campaigned on promises of peace, but each took America to war shortly after being elected.

Personally, I think you need to reassess your perspective. If you truly harbor a feeling of fear and mistrust in our current President, I would go as far as to call you paranoid; however I really don’t think you are. I do think you have listened to a certain point of view for quite some time and have come to accept some things (which I find absurd) as fact without really doing the research and forming personal opinions based upon your intellect, moral compass and true assessment of facts.  

Once again, we are really not far apart and I harbor no malice or ill will toward ether candidate. If we end up with a Romney presidency, there will certainly be some advantages- I don’t think Foreign Policy will be one- but advantages none the less. If Obama is reelected, I think he will bring advantages as well.

Quite frankly, my personal financial position in the short term would most likely benefit from a Romney win. I am not however convinced that the United States of America and Mankind in general would benefit in the long run......but I may be wrong.... and I might change my mind.....

Love you too brother.

 

 

MI legislature could learn a lesson from NY State

It's hard to imagine that our narrow minded, social conservative (SC) state legislature cannot learn from New York State. The NY State Legislature has not only encouraged Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research, it has allocated 600 million over 10 years for research. This has produced incredible results that promise breakthroughs for many diseases that hereunto have seen very little progress. The NY Legislature is acting not only in the interest of people who would benefit from new disease therapies, but also in the interest of all its citizens because of the tremendous positive economic impact this research will have. Not only will the payback be almost immediate as infrastructure build-out, and associated economic activity at universities and Medical/ Research Centers creates cutting edge jobs and requisite high tech job skills, it will also enable long range economic growth through the Life Science industry. If we can cure more diseases, it will cost less to treat them....duhhh. If we encourage cutting edge, state of the art research, then industry will build around that culture, and create jobs, economic activity and more prosperity. We as citizens of the state would also be "first in line" when it comes to realizing and new therapies that may be developed.

But alas.....this is what is happening in New York…not in Michigan.....How can it be that those guys are so much smarter than our guys? I don't get it, it is so oblivious, this is basic humanity 101!!!!!! this is basic economics 101!!!!!!! this is basic common sense !!!!! How can our Michigan State House of representatives, (including our 101st district tea head red neck  Ray (Billie bob Joe bob) Franz be SO STUPID.

Our social conservative lawmakers are not only taking the opposite approach of NY, they are actually quietly trying to pass legislation that will impede or even reverse the ESC research that is being privately and federally funded at University of Michigan. What a bunch of brain dead turds. Let me see......not only do they ignore Proposal 2 in which we the citizens of Michigan passed the Michigan Stem Cell Amendment to the State Constitution in 2008, they try and destroy life saving research because they feel it better to destroy a left over embryo then allow its use in research. As a result, not only do we get to witness complete disregard of majority opinion, we also get to be denied easy access to possible life saving therapies.......Oh,, and we get to be left out of the incredible economic benefits that could come from minimum investment in the future. Let's face it, manufacturing jobs in the automotive industry are NOT what is going to rebuild the economic base of S.E. Michigan (although the SC Legislature might have you believe it could) but a revitalized Life Science, Medical research, Pharmaceutical, Bio tech, type Industry COULD.......

As insane as it may sound, our SC legislature will ignore the opinion of every member of the scientific, medical, research community, and every economist (conservative or liberal)......if fact ignore the opinion and advice of almost every sane, practical, Intelligent, pragmatic, person alive in favor of the beliefs and opinions of a couple dozen guys living in Rome that ware funny hats........GO FIGURE.

omminnee.....omminnee....omminnee.... we won't go broke if you do.....Thanks a bunch Your Eminence!

ALBANY, N.Y. — Almost halfway through a $600 million state program supporting stem cell research, eight medical schools around New York are reporting progress on projects such as replicating liver cells and eradicating leukemia cells.

A new report from Associated Medical Schools of New York updates work at the institutions where hundreds of researchers are starting to unravel causes and potential treatments for conditions ranging from autism to heart disease and cancer. Stem cells are self-renewing and have the ability to develop into other types of cells.

The Mount Sinai School of Medicine reported finding a method to transform human skin cells into stem cells and turned differentiated human stem cells into heart cells. Those findings are expected to result in better understanding of how heart disease develops and allow initial testing of new treatments on stem cells before they are used on human subjects.

Dr. Ihor Lemischka, director of the Black Family Stem Cell Institute at Mount Sinai, said recreating heart cells in a dish from a patient with LEOPARD Syndrome, a disease caused by a genetic mutation, has opened ongoing avenues for researching the disease and screening potential drugs.

"It was a major achievement," Lemischka said. The initial work was reported in June 2010 in the journal Nature.

The shared research facility at Mount Sinai supports the work at 80 different labs, Lemischka said.

The Empire State Stem Cell Program was intended to fund projects in early stages, including those that initially have been unable to get federal or private funding. Grants have also been used for capital projects like renovating labs and establishing new stem cell centers.

The Albert Einstein College of Medicine reported replicating liver cells that could help reduce the need for liver transplants using live donors and cadavers.

Dr. Allan Spiegel said 12 new researchers have been hired with state funding at the Bronx school, which also lists anemia, brain disorders, heart disease and obesity among its stem cell research subjects.

"It offers tremendous potential for understanding the causes of and developing better treatments for diseases like cancer, type 1 diabetes and Parkinson's," he said.

Einstein scientists also report advanced work on blood stem cell function. The school has opened a new $25 million research institute funded through private philanthropy. The report said state money has been used by the schools to leverage both federal and private grants.

The 11-year program has awarded nearly $223 million in research grants since 2008, with medical schools awarded $137.5 million. This year's state budget includes $44.8 million, the same as last year and down from the $50 million originally planned.

According to the report, the funding has supported about 400 research and related positions from New York City to Buffalo and Rochester.

The Rochester medical school, with research programs into neurological diseases, cancer, bone repair and musculoskeletal diseases, has been awarded more than $18 million. In one project, researchers said they developed a novel method to target and eradicate leukemia stem cells.

"This research has the potential to have significant impact on the treatment of patients with specific types of leukemia and will be useful in treating lymphoma and multiple myeloma," the report said.

___

Opinions on WSJ "High tax Rates won't Slow Growth"

A friend who’s opinion I respect sent me this article yesterday. I must agree with the ideas contained that a humongous tax raise won’t cut the mustard, but I find the idea of simply cutting spending…….well……simplistic. I can clam no solutions and would not be arrogant to profess that I can even understand all the complex intracasies…….but Hey, opinions, that I do have! What follows are the article and my brilliant observations.

Last week, Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez published an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “High Tax Rates Won’t Slow Growth.” They argue that when it comes to tax revenue, the US is not close to the top of the Laffer Curve, and raising tax rates to 50%, or even 70%, would boost revenue and reduce the deficit.

Even if they are right, why on earth would the U.S. do that? Why would a nation confiscate 70% of what its most productive citizens make and redirect those resources toward a government-chosen objective? Why would a nation discriminate against those who most fruitfully multiply their talents?

The only way to possibly justify such a confiscatory, 70%, tax rate is if the income that is to be taken is immorally or illegally earned, if high incomes are damaging to others, or if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government investment is more productive than private sector investment.

None of these arguments holds water.

Almost all income earned by high-income individuals is earned in a competitive market, by serving other people. Football players work their tails off to be the top draft pick. Executives live on the knife edge, trying to make decisions that bring value. Small-business owners twist themselves into knots attempting to deliver quality products at attractive prices to customers who could shop elsewhere. Surgeons go to school forever to perfect their craft. Programmers live on Twinkies and Red Bull and don’t sleep. These heroic efforts to become a better athlete, doctor, executive, small-business owner, or inventor would not be undertaken if the rewards were limited.

Moreover, rapid changes in technology always concentrate wealth. Just as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and Walton have demonstrated, new industry reaps widespread rewards. Bill Gates earned about $10 from every person in the world as Microsoft software enhanced the lives of six billion people. Name any cutting-edge technology company of the past three decades and you will find among its founders and executives vast wealth. Why? Because their products help other people, not because they rip people off.

According to data aggregated by the Tax Foundation, total adjusted gross income (taxable income using IRS definitions) was $1.63 trillion in 1980 and $7.83 trillion in 2009. Yes the top 1% saw its share of that income rise from 8.5% to 16.9%. And, yes, the bottom 50% saw its share fall from 17.7% to 13.5%, but that smaller share in 2009 was $1.05 trillion, a 265% increase from the $288 billion earned by the bottom 50% in 1980. The bottom 50% also saw its share of total taxes fall from 7.1% to 2.25%.

In other words, it is true that incomes at the top have risen faster than average incomes, but it is not true that any group has been made worse off. Incomes and living standards for all Americans, including those in lower-income brackets, are up. At the same time, tax burdens for those in lower-income groups have fallen substantially.

Diamond and Saez argue that per-capita real GDP growth was higher (2.23% annually) between 1950 and 1980 when top marginal tax rates were high, than it was between 1980 and 2010 (1.68% annually) when top tax rates were lower. But saying that tax rates were the dominant factor in these 30-year periods is unnervingly simplistic.

First, very, very few people actually paid the top tax rates. Second, state and local tax rates were much lower than they are today. Third, most foreign countries had similar high tax rates, which meant moving was not a benefit. Fourth, the U.S. was alone at the top, economically, in the post WWII world — our competitors had to rebuild. Fifth, government was significantly smaller. Non-defense federal spending averaged just 10.6% of GDP between 1950 and 1980, but 16.6% between 1980 and 2010. In 2011, non-defense federal spending was 19.4% of GDP — a record high.

The reason the U.S. has a large deficit these days is not because tax rates are too low; it is because spending is too high. The last year in which the U.S. had a surplus in its budget was 2001 — federal spending in that year was 18.2% of GDP. Since then, total federal spending has never been lower than 19% of GDP and last year it was 24.1%. The U.S. has never balanced its budget when spending was greater than 19.5% of GDP. Raising tax rates won’t do it. Spending cuts are the only way.

Finally, Diamond and Saez argue that high tax rates are justified if government can earn higher returns from investment than the private sector. Every once in a while government gets lucky, but over time, no government planned or controlled economy has proven that it could outgrow a system of free market capitalism. Europe tried and failed. The Soviet Union tried and failed. Diamond and Saez, if allowed, would try and fail as well. Raising tax rates to 70% cannot possibly create wealth. The Growth Grade for this proposal is a solid, and well-earned, F.

 Observations as follows:

1. A 70% INCOME TAX RATE on ANYBODY WOULD BE NEGATIVE.
2. This is especially true if it applies to ME, therefore I would not
support such measures.

3. Agreed, that government spending, Federal, State, and municipal will need
to see a reduction, in much the same way a household cannot live beyond it's
means. At least not after the credit implosion we have experienced and and
the delivering process we are still in. The American public did however
pull it off for 40 years till the fun house collapsed.

4. The caveat is that, it's just not that fucking simple........or easy.
Most, if not all, bureaucracies (government that is) are founded of a sense
of benevolence. Somebody gets something. Value is added to society in a
billion different ways, and of course the bureaucracy grows and evolves and
takes on a life on its own.

5. This often goes unnoticed and undisturbed because value is being added to
someone. Darwin failed to catalog this particular evolution in Origin of the
Species so how the hell am I supposed to recognize it. Problem is it is a
zero sum game and for someone to realize value, someone else has to lose
it....right?

6. Biggest problem is.... it is really, really hard to TAKE SOMETHING AWAY.
We used to call people Indian givers (politically incorrect I know) for
giving something and taking it back. The term is derogatory and that person
is generally thought of as a scum bag.

7. So while this article correctly points out that an overzealous tax
policy that exerts onerous tax liability on all and draconian measures on
the top producers will not necessarily produce a more vibrant economy, it
neglects to recognize the complexities and difficulties in "spending
reduction".

8. In my simple humble opinion a compromise approach with a multi point plan
with a 20+ year horizon is what is needed and would include (but not limited
to) the following:

a. Total tax reform......gut the fuc*&*^&^$ker and start over. Flat tax at say
15-20 with very little loop holeism. Leave the charitable donation
deduction. You could even keep it progressive, but with maybe 2-3 rates and
only 5% difference. Lower Corp. but take our all the “Government decides
who win and loses" type shit. If we remove tax incentives and have a fair
equitable low corp. rate that's the same across the board, we will have
significantly fewer paid lobbyists and significantly fewer legislators' who
are bought and paid for by industry. Gee we might accomplish something for
the greater good of mankind without a billion special interests plying the
halls of congress lobbying for tax breaks, and actually spur innovation and
economic growth because we will know what to expect and know the Federal
Government is not betting against me if I want to build a Wind Farm by
supplementing the oil and gas industry.

b. Coordinated long range plan for deficit and debt reduction. Set
targets for Deficit to GDP, Fed budget to GDP whatever..... Just stick to
them......but what do you cut.....as indicated above, therein lies the
problem.

c. If it was up to ME, I would say, cut defiance by 20% over 5 years.
Will we still be safe, fuck yes. Nobody, I mean nobody can even come
remotely close to standing toe to toe with the US military. Even if China,
Turkey, Brazil, and Russia go full court press and we spend 10 years going
backward it still won’t mean dick. Of course we actually increase funding for
the SEALs, they are bad ass awesome.

d. ENTITLEMENTS....Well now we come to the eight hundred gorilla in the
room don't we. This is the ultimate example if a highly evolved
sophisticated, well meaning bureaucracy that has gone from an eight hundred
pound gorilla to a true king Kong. Totally out of control, and pretty hard
to screw over all the guys like our dad's who paid in all their lives and
totally deserve that SS check and for Medicare to pick up their medical
bills. Even the hard core supply side economics guys admit that the social
safety net is a total requisite to a free market system to survive over the
long haul, if only to allow the common guy the ability to survive the normal
and expected ups and down of the naturally flowing market. That's not
socialism; in fact I would argue that it's the antidote to socialism. I
guess we just have to slowly transition to as much of a private system as we
can get away with but it sure is sticky. I don't intend on any retirement
help from Uncle Sam, but then I don't NEED to.....but what if I did?

e. I would keep or increase federal government spending of EDUCATION at
all levels and NIH & FDA. Because I know for an absolute fact that
investment in all those areas (with the possible addition of basic
infrastructure) will pay huge in short order and be the biggest positive
influence on the US economy over the long haul.

f. Of course all the other shit including enough (but not tooooo much)
oversight. You know what I mean. The legislature tends to react to crisis
vi-as-vi Dodd-Frank rather than produce well thought practical solution
based policy. Balanced energy policy that's forward looking and accepts
that: I. we need alternatives to fossil fuels because there IS a finite
amount and wars will be waged between whoever is stuck w/o a chair when the
music stops....much better to not need it when that happens. II. We need to
maximize our own resources, but not at the detriment to the ecology because
we as a Race are total pigs and we have already messed up the planet enough
and we don't want to deny our kids the joys of nature, and, III. We realize
that the empirical evidence we DO HAVE is that there are double the
molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere as were there 150 years ago. Considering
that the change in the history of civilized man (that is if you consider us
civilized today) has never been more that 10% in ten thousand years and it's
100% in one hundred and fifty changes are pretty good that we had something
to do with it. So, any policy going forward must take climate change into
the picture.

Ok, those are my bullet points for today, one more thing...... as an
independent, I might have (probably would have) voted for Mitt Romney for
Senator of Mass in 1994 and Gov in 2004....why? because he was, and the
operative word is WAS, a moderate republican who actually registered as an
independent until his senate race against Ted Kennedy in 94 when he ran as a
moderate, pro choice, fiscally pragmatic alternative to Ted. Same when he
won the Gov seat in a Democratic state.
But that dude is gone.

Congressman Fred Upton, who I just met again for the third time today, is the
kind of guy we need more of. He is a moderate republican in his 13th term,
very popular so not threatened. He is pro ESC research, pro choice; he is
practical and thinks his tea party backed fellow members in West MI are
mostly nut cases. while he follows what you and I would call fiscal
conservatism, he supports Special diabetes program funding renewal, he
recognizes the need for public/private Co-op in R&D for the future economic
benefit of us all not just those affected by a particular disease. As chair
of Energy and Commerce which has oversight over FDA budget, he realized the
way FDA is burdened by increasing demand for drugs and devices to move
through the approval system and was no doubt being lobbied hard by Pharma.
So along with the big pharma guys they propose a user fee assessed to them
which is then allocated directly to FDA for increased resources and staff
needed to meet demand.....what a fucking genius, total win- win. So the big
pharma corps. Essentially get taxed (but not us) to pay for the very service
that benefits them, and they are willing to pay because that money is
directly allocated to benefit them via more efficient FDA process. He has 51
out of 54 votes in E&C committee and expects pretty bipartisan support in
the house. He is hoping
senate will take it up and pass by end of June. He is pretty much a rock
star and there are like minded guys on the other side....It's just that they
don't get the press and the Nancy Pelosi's and Eric Cantor’s and other
dysfunctional, ideological, pompous, loutish, loggerheads get all the
media...like reality TV in reality....what a fucking nightmare.

Thanks for the article dude....BTW I did read it!!!

The University of Michigan’s second human embryonic stem cell line has just been placed on the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s registry

I copy this article from CBS News Detroit, April 25, 2012:
This is a prefect example of the tremendous research being conducted at U-M as a result of Michigan voters approval of Prop. 2 in November 2008, and the tremendous benefits , both physical and economic, that are already being realized. It also clearly demonstrates several things:

1. Total validation of Governor Rick Snyder's recent (as posted on this blog 4/23) support of U-M, ESC research, and the will of the MAJORITY OF MICHIGAN'S CITIZENS as expressed through Prop. 2, and his refusal to aline with extreme social conservatives in his own party who would undermine this valuable research.

2. Further proof that the social conservative wing of the MI State Legislature's attempt to further regulate ESC is unnecessary, because of the already strict over site and regulation from the NIH. This simply revels that these regulatory requirements sought by the the legislature are just another way for them to prevent or impede this important research.

3. We, residents of MI, are blessed to have U-M as a state of the art, cutting edge research center here in our own back yard......"UM is one of only four institutions — including two other universities and one private company — to have disease-specific stem cell lines listed in the national registry" Wow, the implications are astounding, not only from an ultimate reduction of suffering standpoint but also from a state economic one. Imagine the possible economic impact of the Life Science industry..It's not like the MI economy is exactly bustling at the moment.

4. Finally, this is further evidence that Public (U-M and NIH) and private (Taubman Institute and JDRF) partnerships WORK. This is the best way to bring basic ideas to life and through the basic R&D pipe line necessary to get this stuff to the people who need it. If this partnership can get ideas to the "proof of concept" stage then private industry will take over and our free enterprise system can do it's thing, but we need to get to that stage.

Ok, In summery......this is an awesome development, and we can be proud to be a part of it....at least if we voted YES on proposal 2 and support ESC and the incredible promise it holds for our future.

Happy reading......Geno Miller

ANN ARBOR — The University of Michigan’s second human embryonic stem cell line has just been placed on the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s registry, making the cells available for federally funded research. It is the second of the stem cell lines derived at UM to be placed on the registry.
The line, known as UM11-1PGD, was derived from a cluster of about 30 cells removed from a donated five-day-old embryo roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. That embryo was created for reproductive purposes, tested and found to be affected with a genetic disorder, deemed not suitable for implantation, and would therefore have otherwise been discarded when it was donated in 2011.

It carries the gene defect responsible for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a hereditary neurological disorder characterized by a slowly progressive degeneration of the muscles in the foot, lower leg and hand. CMT, as it is known, is one of the most common inherited neurological disorders, affecting one in 2,500 people in the United States. People with CMT usually begin to experience symptoms in adolescence or early adulthood.

The embryo used to create the cell line was never frozen, but rather was transported from another IVF laboratory in the state of Michigan to the UM in a special container. This may mean that these stem cells will have unique characteristics and utilities in understanding CMT disease progression or screening therapies in comparison to other human embryonic stem cells.
“We are proud to provide this cell line to the scientific community, in hopes that it may aid the search for new treatments and even a cure for CMT,” says Gary Smith, Ph.D., who derived the line and also is co-director of the UM Consortium for Stem Cell Therapies, part of the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute. “Once again, the acceptance of these cells to the registry demonstrates our attention to details of proper oversight, consenting, and following of NIH guidelines.”

UM is one of only four institutions — including two other universities and one private company — to have disease-specific stem cell lines listed in the national registry. UM has several other disease-specific hESC lines submitted to NIH and awaiting approval, says Smith, who is a professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School. The first line, a genetically normal one, was accepted to the registry in February.
“Stem cell lines that carry genetic traits linked to specific diseases are a model system to investigate what causes these diseases and come up with treatments,” says Sue O’Shea, professor of cell and developmental biology at the UM Medical School, and co-director of the Consortium for Stem Cell Therapies.

Each line is the culmination of years of preparation and cooperation between UM and Genesis Genetics, a Michigan-based genetic diagnostic company. This work was made possible by Michigan voters’ November 2008 approval of a state constitutional amendment permitting scientists to derive embryonic stem cell lines using surplus embryos from fertility clinics or embryos with genetic abnormalities and not suitable for implantation.

The amendment also made possible an unusual collaboration that has blossomed between the University of Michigan and molecular research scientists at Genesis Genetics, a company that has grown in only eight years to become the leading global provider of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) testing. PGD is a testing method used to identify days-old embryos carrying the genetic mutations responsible for serious inherited diseases. During a PGD test, a single cell is removed from an eight-celled embryo. The other seven cells continue to multiply and on the fifth day form a cluster of roughly 100 cells known as a blastocyst.

 

Genesis Genetics performs nearly 7,500 PGD tests annually. Under the arrangement between the company and UM, patients with embryos that test positive for a genetic disease now have the option of donating those embryos to UM if they have decided not to use them for reproductive purposes and the embryos would otherwise be discarded.
The agreement was worked out between UM’s Smith and Mark Hughes, M.D., founder and president of Genesis Genetics and a pioneer in the field of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
“These are very precious cells, and it would be unconscionable not to take advantage of such an opportunity for medical science and the cure of disease,” Hughes said.
“This is another major step forward for medical science in Michigan. It opens up another avenue for researchers to really begin exploring the causes and progression of those diseases, with the ultimate goal of finding new therapies for patients,” says Eva Feldman, M.D., director of the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute and the Russell N. DeJong professor of neurology at the UM Medical School. Feldman sees patients with CMT as part of her clinical practice.

Contributors to the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute’s Consortium for Stem Cell Therapies include the Taubman Institute; the Office of the Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs; the Office of the Medical School Dean; the Comprehensive Cancer Center; the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases; the Office of the Vice President for Research; the School of Dentistry; the Department of Pathology; the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology; the College of Engineering; the Life Sciences Institute; the Department of Neurology; and UM’s Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research.

A. Alfred Taubman, founder and chair of UM’s Taubman Institute, called the second registry placement a tremendous step for stem cell research.
“I consider stem cells to be a modern medical miracle – the most exciting advance in medicine since antibiotics. The progress we have made throughout the state in stem cell research has been nothing short of remarkable,” he said. “This new milestone means much to the University and the state of Michigan, but also to the world. It offers another route for researchers to move ahead in studying these horrible diseases. We hope it is the first of many lines that we can contribute to the global efforts to improve human health.”

To see the stem cell line entry in the NIH registry, visit http://grants.nih.gov/stem_cells/registry/current.htm?id=497
For more information about the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute at the University of Michigan Medical School, visit www.taubmaninstitute.org .
For more information about stem cell research at UM, visit www.umich.edu/stemcell.
Couples who might be interested in donating embryos for UM research, and their physicians, may learn more at www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu/donation/index.html.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder shows impressive bipartisan Integrity.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder shows impressive bipartisan Integrity.

I had to pass along this Detroit Free Press article from today 4/23/12 which I find extremely positive and refreshing. I commend and respect our Governor for standing firm in his commitment to the promise of Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research, and upholding the state constitutional amendment brought about by Proposal 2. Mr. Snyder has proven his personal integrity by separating from the Social Conservative Republican party line, and proving that it is in fact possible to hold and administer a policy of fiscal conservatism and budget reduction, while rejecting the social conservative movement that would outlaw critical life saving research.

As some of you may be aware, parts of the Michigan Legislature have maintained a constant, somewhat quiet, somewhat clandestine effort to ether overturn or seriously impede the exceptional ESC research currently underway at The University of Michigan as a result of Prop 2. Starting in January of 2010, the Health Policy Committee, chaired by Republican State Sen. Tom George, proposed a six bill package SB 647-652 which would have rendered ESC unsustainable in Michigan under draconian restrictions. This failed to pass the House, and Governor Snyder threatened a veto. In April of 2011, the Higher Education Subcommittee, with social conservative majority, attached onerous ESC reporting language in the Higher Education budget bill in complete disregard to Gov. Snyder's budget recommendations. This boilerplate language eventually passed through the legislature, and Gov. Snyder could not affect a veto without rejecting the entire budget (no line item veto).

Now the State Legislature is attempting to further restrict ESC through denial of Performance funding to U-M which would equal 270 million dollars......no small potatoes! Truthfully, I simply cannot make sense of denying one of the top rated University Medical Research Centers in the world, state appropriated funding because a clear minority (as represented at the polls in 2008) of citizens hold it morally superior to discard an embryo into the dumpster rather than use it for lifesaving research. But then maybe I have not had my head inserted inside my rectum for the last decade, which is the only rational I can perceive for such a perverse attitude.

Fan of the Governor or not, one must admit that it is a bit refreshing for a politician to cut the extreme partisan BS and make decisions based on practical, pragmatic, thought and not extreme ideology. I believe I will email and call the Governor's office and thank him for his position, courage and integrity. I would invite anyone who shares my opinion to do the same.

Thanks,

Gene Miller

By David Jesse April 23, 2012
Detroit Free Press Staff Write

Republican Michigan legislators who are trying to force the University of Michigan to provide details on embryonic stem-cell research have a big hurdle to overcome: Gov. Rick Snyder.

Snyder, also a Republican, remains convinced that the Legislature cannot force U-M or other universities to answer questions about stem cells included in budget bills, his spokeswoman told the Free Press.

"We remain consistent with the language on the stem-cell issue that we used last year where we took the position that the boilerplate language that was included in the current year's budget is unenforceable and unconstitutional if sought to be enforced," Snyder spokeswoman Geralyn Lasher said in a Friday e-mail. "Our legal counsel wrote a letter to legislative leadership to that effect, and it remains our view at this time as well."

U-M is glad to have Snyder's support, spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said Friday.

"It's encouraging that the governor is being consistent," Fitzgerald said. "We continue to work with the legislators in the appropriations process. We have a lot of time to address this and other issues."

Snyder's reluctance is likely to be a major weapon for U-M as it fights the Republicans on the issue.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120423/NEWS06/204230337/1001/rss01

Observations on “The Buffett Rule” and the REAL amount of Income tax paid on investment return OR: How President Obama failed to take the high road on tax reform

Observations on “The Buffett Rule” and the REAL amount of Income tax paid on investment return OR: How President Obama failed to take the high road on tax reform

I admit that for a blog that aspires to achieve an independent political stance that I seem to spend more time bashing conservatives than liberals. I guess this is because even though I tend to agree with a lot of “traditional fiscal conservative" ideology and policy, I just can't seem to overlook, accept, or forgive the self-righteous, arrogant social conservative attitude that goes with it. Besides that, beating up on the few ignoble former republican presidential primary candidates, was just too easy....like shootin fish in a barrel....as we say here in da Nord country.  It is basically emotion over logic, the social stuff just simply rubs me the wrong way so I react accordingly and attempt to use wit,  wisdom, and sarcasm in pointing out the ludicrously and hypocrisy of their position. Even as I explain this and try to justify, I find myself throwing a dig at the social conservative movement (SCM) so let me try again………………………………

This prevailing attitude that the “rich guy” doesn’t contribute his fair share to the Federal coffers which was propagated, nurtured and supported by the White House, does not seen exactly fair, accurate or productive in my humble opinion. So, here I go trying to defend the rich guy. Please read with an open mind if you are part of the “Pummel the Rich Guy Movement” or (PRGM) to coin an acronym.

Well, surprising as it may seem, I have a bone to pick with Mr. Obama at the moment. It’s this “Buffett rule" thing, which is a populous strategy to increase federal income tax on certain presumably affluent citizens but really neglects to point out several facts that actually render it quite unfair. For this writing I would like to focus in on dividend, capital gains, and death taxes, and explore whether or not they are fair and equitable for all in their present carnation. Don't get me wrong, I feel strongly in the necessity for comprehensive tax reform. It is just that the “Buffett rule" and the PRGM  is nether the fair or the effective way to do it if your goal is to actually reduce Federal deficit as opposed to espousing popular rhetoric in the interest of political gain and reelection. Of course this is a popular direction for the President to steer since picking on the top one or even ten percent leaves the remaining 90 percent cheering and casting their votes, love, and kisses your way. Even if it is not effective, and in fact could reduce the Federal net intake due to the negative impact historical tax increases have had, people still don't mind beating up on the rich guy. By the time we get around to feeling the negative impact, most voters will have forgotten that it was their own instinct to beat up on the rich guy, and jump on the "redistribution of wealth” band wagon that brought down the house. If I were an adviser to the President I would tell him to go for it (even thought I'd know perfectly well it was a flawed plan) because it would be popular and raise his poll standings. That, after all, is the game of politics…..Kind of like the “Game of Thrones” on HBO, only 6 or 7 centuries later.

So the thing about dividends that's not being brought up in this discussion is that they are AFTER TAX net distributions. In other words, they are distributions to share holders of company profits after already having been taxed at the corporate level.....so, essentially a double tax. The current IRS tax rate for dividend distributions is 15%, so Mr. Buffet's personal tax return might reflect something close to that since he derives a large portion of his revenue in that fashion. What this doesn't reflect is that dividends are paid out of the net profit of the company (which he might well own most of) and that profit has already been taxed at the corporate rate of up to 38%. Therefore, Mr. Buffett is actually paying 38 plus 15 so 53% on his income on investment as opposed to his secretary who is probably paying an effective rate of around 20-25%. Same with Mr. Obama, same with Mr. Romney. Get it? Would it be fair to raise the dividend rate to say 30%. I don't know......maybe so. I do know that it would make it possible for a return on capital investment via dividend to be taxed and put into Government coffers at up to 68%. That creates a lot less incentive to invest and as such results in slower economic growth, which results in lower GDP which ultimately results in lower living standards for all.

The other under- discussed thing about dividends is that, investment income, and dividend distribution are not the exclusive domain of the rich guy. Most every middle class, middle income, family who pays federal income tax (46% do not you know) have some sort of savings and retirement plan. Whether a 401k, IRA, pension fund, union or company retirement program….really, anything but money stuffed in a mattress or buried in the back yard…is invested in “the market” and usually contains a large portion of Large Cap, dividend paying stocks. So, basically if you are a public school teacher, or a receptionist at an office, or a garbage collector, you probably have skin in the game and are thus affected by how investment income is taxed.

Long term Capital gains are taxed today at 10%...... fine.....I'm just fine with that. Capital gains are just the money you make from buying something and selling it for more. Your house, your car, collectables, stocks, baseball cards ...whatever. So this is basically a tax on trade. Long term, means you have held the item for over a year. Short term rates (under a year) are taxed at your ordinary income rate, of which the highest rate is 35 %. I'm ok with that too. What is not ok is to tax Cap gain at a level at which it starts to impede free trade. The buying, selling, improving, and trading of goods are the primary, basic underlying essences of an economy……..Really, the trading of goods, consumption and manufacture, is by definition an ECONIMY. If it is a stock (that pays a dividend) that you sell and make a capital gain on, then you have already paid some tax on the earnings as described above. If it is a house, then presumably you have paid property tax during you ownership.

Now, this basically describes almost every retail business in the world. They buy something and sell it for more and make a profit……Right, and they are taxed as business. If a small business (LLC or S corp) then the tax just passes through to you personally. If a big business (c corp or publicly traded) then it gets taxed at the corporate level. So the Capital gains tax is not when it is "your business", but when you just happen to be smart or lucky enough to buy something for less and sell it for more. I guess it’s fair to throw a tax on that, and 10% doesn’t seem out of line, but there is a line at which the tax burden becomes a determent to economic growth, and that’s a line it is better for all not to cross. Many will argue where the line is and quite frankly that’s way above my pay grade, but Markets like stability not uncertainly so status quo is usually a good thing…….in other words, DON'T MESS WITH IT!!!!!

And now we get to one of my favorite pet peeves the Death Tax. The name alone says it all; you actually have to pay a tax to Die. Got to love that one don’t you….a tax to die…wait just a darn minute here….can’t I just live a bit longer, I really don’t have the money set aside to die yet!!!! Ok, Ok, exactly How many times does the Federal Government want to tax the dollars of a poor dead guy or rich dead guy as the case may be……let’s see. If he lived in Michigan then the Feds took 35 % when he earned it, the State took 4.5%. The state took another 6 % every time he spent a penny. Whatever he invested in savings, the Fed took 35% of interest earnings, 15% of dividend earnings, and 10 % of any Capital gains. Then when he dies and wants to pass his money on to his kids, the feds take 55% of everything over a million bucks. My point is that the inheritance tax is not really fair because it is a double (and sometimes triple) tax. If one uses the argument that a person does not deserve to inherit the fruits of their ancestor’s labors, I would argue that the federal government is not any more deserving.

Beyond the moral argument, there is one of efficiency. I do not have data on what the impact of what eliminating the death tax would be. I can however speculate on possible negative impact to small businesses, which have been described by most economists as the primary growth driver in our economy, and farms.  Older individuals owning farms or small businesses, when weighing ongoing investment risks and marginal rates of return in light of tax factors, may see less value in maintaining these taxable enterprises. They may instead decide to reduce risk and preserve capital, by shifting resources, liquidating assets, and using tax avoidance techniques such as insurance policies, gift transfers, trusts, and tax free investments.

The estate tax burdens farmers because agriculture involves the use of many capital assets, such as land and equipment, to generate the same amount of income that other types of businesses generate with fewer assets. Individuals, partnerships, and family corporations own 98 percent of the nation’s 2.2 million farms and ranches. The estate tax may force surviving family members to sell land, buildings, or equipment to keep their operation going.

This obviously implies significant negative impact to the U.S. economy in general and certainly sheds light to the idea that this is not just a problem for billionaires.

One last point in this discussion of the PRGM, is that the rich guy we love to pummel already pays most of the taxes. The top 1% in earnings currently pay 38% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. The remaining 90% pick up the remaining 30% and 46% of citizens in the U.S. pay nothing at all. I personally feel like I have paid my fair share and tried to be a productive contributor to our economy. I would and will pay MORE if that’s what is required to bring our country to economic health as long as it is FAIR and has at least some chance of working. I’m not up there in the top of these statistics, however I’m am certainly blessed to enjoy financial security, so if I am in a position to contribute a bit more to the national kitty for the benefit of all, I am willing to do so. That being said, I realize that if we continue to tap the top earners for more and more of our revenue then they will slowly deteriorate, as do all resources until we have tapped them out……then what??? 

To bring a summery to my ramblings, I will point out the obvious; which is that United States Federal Tax policy and just now and now much we pay for the services our government provides will be a debate and point of contention for years to come. In fact I suspect it will go on for as long as we exist. What I see as the most unfortunate situation in this debate today, is that nether political party seems able to propose any sort of practical, realistic, fair plan to deal with our current dismal economy and ever growing federal government deficit. My disappointment today lies in the fact that rather than rising above the fray with practical solutions, our President (who I support) has stooped to the same political gamesmanship that he ridicules in his opponents.

When my President makes a plea to the American people for fairness and honesty and is not completely open and honest in presenting all the details, I cannot help but be disappointed. Once again, I know this is the way the game is played and I am not naïve ……but…come on B….take the high road dude!!!!

All of this points once again to the need for a valid, viable, and independent third political party. One steeped in common sense, compromise and progress, not extreme ideology and gridlock. My favorite quote this season came from my friend Charlee (who is defiantly a democrat) who said “the democrats are disappointing, and the republicans are embarrassing” touché!

I suspect I will catch some shit from some liberal friends, and possibly some dissention on the other side as well, but that’s ok with me since my position and opinion is subject to new information and can certainly change in light of intelligent argument which may serve to enlighten me. I am capable of changing my opinion, which in the political arena is called flip-flopping and regarded as an evil thing. I think it’s kind of stupid not to change your mind in light of new information or a personal reassessment of the facts in front of you, but that’s a whole other pet peeve better suited to a future post.

If you got this far, thanks for reading this and feel free to comment, here or on my FB page.

Geno Miller

4/16/2012….. Remember….taxes are due tomorrow, I guess I have some work to do tonight.