Intaxication: A Penny Saved is a Government Oversight

Tax day has come and gone for us all. Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you heard about the tax day tea parties that were held around the nation.

On the Fourth of July, 1776, America declared ourselves liberated from unfair British taxation. On the Fifth of July, 1776, we then started our own system of taxation. I am, of course, embellishing on the actual date, but for the most part we declared freedom from British rule because of taxation without representation. In the almost 233 years of American sovereignty, our system of taxation has largely been left unchecked and has escalated out of control. Today, it's hard to believe that America was founded to avoid high taxation.

We all dislike taxation. However, we have a responsibility to pay some taxes in order to maintain essential government services (national defense, social security, schools, trash collection, maintenance of roads, etc.). However there are some inherent problems with the American tax system as it stands.

First off, our tax system is progressive. The more money you make, the more in taxes you pay. This stems from the economic argument that individuals with less money value a dollar more than others with more moeny. But as my wife so eloquently puts it (and I'm paraphrasing here), 'The world will try to take that dollar away with everything it has, but it's still your dollar and you should fight to keep it that way'. (Warning: Tangent Rant Ahead) So I understand that a person with $10,000 has less than someone with $100,000; but to me, that's not a valid reason to take the $1 and give it to the person with $10,000. Both individuals made decisions on how to live their lives and subsequently have reaped their rewards. Government should not have a role in redistributing wealth in the land of opportunity; if you want to make more money, get a good education and/or get a better job.

A better taxation system would be one where tax payers get to chose how much they want to pay in taxes. This is the liberatarian argument of a national sales tax. This sales tax is implemented in lieu of a personal income tax and other forms of taxation. This way, people pay taxes based on how much goods they consume rather than how much money they make. It's also a flat tax so everyone is impacted the same (the only distinction between rich and poor here is the wealthy's ability to consume more goods). And for those of you who worry about this tax being regressive in nature (affecting the poor more than others), the liberatarian taxation model exempts the poor from paying all or part of the national sales tax. This tax system is more equitable and helps to keep the government out of our paychecks.

We also pay too much in taxes and are taxed from too many levels. I would go as far to say that there are very few things in America that are actually tax-exempt. We pay different taxes on almost everything and pay taxes to multiple levels of government (city/town, county, state, federal). Escaping taxes is almost impossible. Tax law is written in such a confusing manner that no one understands it, and the ones that do understand it know enough about it to find the right loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

And I think that's the main reason there were widespread national protests on tax day; the current tax system is grossly unfair. But CNN didn't want you to think that. CNN wanted you to think that it was a conservative protest against President Obama. These protests have been going on for years now, but this was the first year that the protests received media attention and promotion.

One reader commented (online) that I should watch more CNN to balance me out. Why would I do that after the sickening "story" CNN aired on the tax-day protests? I was able to watch a video of what CNN didn't air thanks to some protestors who had their camera-phones handy. One protestor confronted CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, about her unfair portrayal of the Chicago tea-party. She was correct when she accused Roesgen of unfairly selected a member of the protest who obviously held an extreme viewpoint of the Obama Administration. She informed Roesgen (1) the protest was non-partisan in nature, (2) demonstrated against unfair taxation, and (3) Roesgen could have picked any normal member of the rally to get those points.

Roesgen tried to get the woman to admit that the protest was made popular through promotions by Fox News, but the woman retorted that the information was available to everyone; not just through one particular medium. And who cares if Fox News provided promotion and coverage of the event? Who cares what Rush Limbaugh says? Limbaugh and Fox News are just two mediums of thousands for getting information. I don't even watch Fox News at all. I get my information from many different sources; primarily from reading the newspaper or online editions. Just because my opinions come more from the right doesn't mean I subscribe exclusively to the thoughts and sentiment of Limbaugh and Fox News.

I, like most Americans, am smart enough to form my own opinions from information received from any source; whether it is biased left or right. So will I be watching CNN to balance out my opinion after these tax-day shenanigans? Absolutely not. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

And Roesgen should have known that we are all smart enough to not be steered by Fox News and Limbaugh. Now she does. We are smart enough to be free thinkers and actually act in our own best interests. The only agenda behind the tax protests was the agenda for lower taxes. There will always be kooks that come out with their own agenda and piggy-back off the crowd. How many times has there been an Iraq War protest that a kook in there with their own agenda? Answer: All the time. Is that indicative of that particular protest as a whole? No.

So kudos to the tax protestors that exercised their right to assemble peacefully to ask the government for redress (still remember that one in the Bill or Rights?). It's your patriotic right.

The Reality of Reality Television

For almost a decade, we have been watching the reality television programming that the major broadcasting corporations have been subjecting us to. The explosion in popularity of reality tv started in the early 2000's and since that time we have been bombarded with numerous spin-offs and sequels. What I find more disturbing than the sheer stupidity of these shows is our interest in them.

Simply put, there is no reality in reality tv. I think most of us have realized that these "unscripted" shows are certainly not "unscripted", let alone real. Former cast members have told the media producers utilize many tool to make these shows work. Story lines are manufactured by "ghost script writers". Directors order "takes" to get good footage for production. Advanced editing techniques are sometimes used to create story lines and plots when formerly one did not exist. Shows cast individuals whose are picked solely on the anticipation they will create strain between characters, thereby establishing a pathetic attempt at a "plot" and "resolution". Reality is basically not an ingredient in the recipe.

With reality dating shows (specifically The Bachelor), for instance, the ending is far from reality. I was unfortunately subjected to watching the particularly hapless season finale of The Bachelor with my wife and was shocked (sarcasm) when I found out that the Bachelor had changed his mind about his final selection and instead decided to marry the first runner-up. Come to find out, the producers of the show told the Bachelor to select his number 2 at the final rose ceremony and then change his mind on the show to both (1) raise ratings and (2) create a spin-off for the Bachelorette. Bogus. I felt dumber for having wasted the time watching this God-forsaken excuse for "prime-time programming". Shame on you ABC.

These shows are not only falsified, they also depict examples of how not to act. I was also subjected to watching "The Hills", an MTV reality tv show. The demeanor and sense of self-entitlement these young adults (and I use that term very loosely judging by their behavior) demonstrate is sickening. I'm not sure if it's (1) a "Southern-California" thing, (2) a "my-mommy-and-daddy-are-super-rich-and-I-can-do-anything-I-want" thing, or (3) an "I-have-my-own-spot-on-a-popular-show-on-MTV" thing that makes these people act the way they do. The actions portrayed on this show wouldn't be considered civil/acceptable in the animal kingdom.

Essentially, each "character" is trying to outstage the other in order to get more air-time and exposure. These tactics have resulted in the show's characters evolving into nothing more than a bunch of 20-something prima donnas throwing fits when they don't get everything they want just the way they want it. So much for character development, right? When I was 5 years old and acted like these "celebrities" do, I got a good spanking (and thank God I did).

Yet what worries me about 99.9% of the reality programming on MTV is that teenagers and pre-teenagers are watching these shows at alarming rates and viewing the actions exhibited as acceptable ways to behave in public and interact with others. This coupled with parents' declining use of discipline has created a generation filled with snot-nosed-whiney brats that have the moral integrity, civil attitude, and public awareness of a 5-year-old throwing a temper-tantrum in Toys-R-Us. Taking heed from the examples on MTV would only create a generation of self-fulfilling adults who crave everyone's attention by making a public spectacle, labeling the coming generation the "look-at-me" generation.

What's worse is that these reality programs have effectively lowered the standard by which we judge programming. When was the last time a great series like Cheers or Seinfeld made its way into the programming line up? Reality programming is so prevalent and popular that its stronghold on prime-time time slots has crowded out the introduction of new, possibly award-winning shows. How many new, good shows can you think of? I can only name a few off the top of my head.

I can understand why major networks continue to make these shows; they are cheap to produce and the American viewing public has become addicted. But seriously, how many seasons of Dancing with the Stars does America need? Does America really need another Idol? Will every bachelor and bachelorette get their own shot at finding love in front of millions of viewers? How many more reality tv shows can they produce? How long until all reality has been filmed?

The traditional benefit and appeal from television was that it presented an opportunity for people to escape from reality into a land of fantasy, comedy, action, suspense, etc. But this option has been severely depleted for almost a decade and I don't know if I can see an end in sight.

I can only hope that eventually network producers move away from reality television so I can finally watch something either mentally stimulating or entertaining for that matter. As long as there is demand for these shows, unfortunately the networks will continue to run them. Subsequently, you won't find me at home watching as well (if I can help it); you'll find me reading a good book or catching up on world events.

The Political Court Jester

Carrot Top and Ron White called in sick today, so instead you're stuck with me. And that's the beauty of politics; it is serious subject matter that makes for fantastic comic fodder.

John Stewart realizes this and provides something that no other major television news media does today; truth. And that's the real joke of it all; CNN, MSNBC, and other news stations rarely ask the hard-hitting questions and hold politicians accountable for speaking from both sides of their mouth.

So it's a comedian that does a better job of holding politicians (of all parties) accountable for their actions and statements, with a dash of humor mixed in to make the "news" bearable to the viewers. What does it matter so long as the source of the comic fodder is the horse's mouth?

It shouldn't matter. We live in an new age of "information osmosis" in which we get "news" from any and every possible media source.

I attempt to inject some humor in my opinion of our current events, but realize sometimes I fail. I can get pretty energized and worked up and forget about the humor that can be found in the story.

But that's just my nature; sometimes I can be all business, but at other times I can use some whit to bring the humor of a bad situation to the top.

For instance, President Obama has said that he inherited a large deficit from former President Bush. This is true for the most part. Former President Bush did increase the national debt during his administration. However, comparing the spending patterns of the past to Obama's current spending plan is hilarious considering Obama's plan in one month spends what it took Bush 5 years to achieve. If there is a supplemental appropriations measure this year and revenue continue to decline, Obama's deficit spending will equal all 8 years under Bush. It shouldn't matter if Obama inherited the deficit or not, Bush inherited one as well. Obama could try to promote real "change" by spending less than his predecessor, but instead he suprised us all by spending more; but it's "change" nonetheless. Consequently we have less and less change in our pockets. (Joke 1) Maybe that's what he meant by "change"; the government actually needs "change" to pay it's bills?

(Joke 2) A "C" student at Yale so far has managed to do a better job balancing his checkbook than a Harvard Magna Cum Laude graduate.

Something else to think about is that the Treasury Department, under Obama, has made $3 Trillion (with a T) in tax-free Treasury Bonds available to cover our nation's debt. This will only crowd out private business borrowing by decreasing the amount of money available to lend to businesses that want to expand. When Treasury Bonds are tax-free, this means that any interest earnings on these Bonds are exempt from taxes (something the well-off would like to do right now under the current administration). The government policy during this recession is to unthaw the frozen credit markets, which cannot happen if those with money are locking that money into these bonds.

Additionally, Obama plans on increasing taxes on small businesses and individuals with more than $250,000 of income. These people are the only people right now (given the recession) that actually have the money to invest! So the government wants to take more money away from those people who can actually afford to keep money in the bank that can be used to make loans necessary to unfreeze the credit market?

(Joke 3) If the federal government has policies that restrict credit and access to capital, borrows trillions of dollars with tax free incentives that compete in attracting capital, and on top of that adds large tax increases on the individuals that actually have capital, how does the administration hope to fix the recession? The actions of the administration seem counterproductive to the point of hilarity.

I hope you're laughing like I am at all of this mess. If not, I'd like to close with a couple of quotes that best fit the American situation today:

"In our desire to have government become our benefactor and sustainer, we have allowed it to become our taskmaster and overlord. As a result, we have become little more than well-fed, well-entertained slaves to the state. Freedom, as envisioned by our forefathers, is gone." – Chuck Baldwin.

"The difference between death and taxes is, death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." – Will Rogers.