The right-wing thinkers at Heritage may object that they have the right to pay their president whatever they feel like. Of course they are right, but the issue here is whether they have the right to force taxpayers to subsidize the bloated salary they pay to their president.
As Republicans are so agitated about maintaining incentives (for others) to work their fingers to the bone, should we not increase the inheritance tax to preserve the financial incentives for wealthy heirs to work?
We hear endless lamentations about how corrupt our political process has become; that special interest groups with wealthy anonymous donors fund the campaigns of politicians who in-turn endorse legislation which favors these groups. For the most part, it's true.
If we are to succeed in seeing a less polluted, yet still prosperous, future, governments and societies alike must focus policy on promoting the fuels which strike the right balance between cost, scalability, efficiency, and environmental impact.
The news that the Braves plan to abandon it is simply stunning. What happened? The Braves say they want to be closer to their real fan base in the affluent northern suburbs, and hey, that's capitalism, I guess. Except here's the thing: It's not.
Demand for SNAP benefits is proof that we are living in a time of long-term unemployment and a very deep recession. Moreover, we have a food system that artificially makes healthy, simple food more expensive than processed non-food.
We can point fingers and argue over the biological realities and psychological influences, but that is missing the point. Moms and dads feel inadequate, as it were only their fault that they can't be two in places at one time, when in reality, they are dealing with a systemic problem.
And as Larry Ellison knows when you make your own energy to run football fields of servers storing most of the business data, globally and there's extra energy left over -- then it's sold back into the grid, maximizing the investment.
We know the shutdown is not about fiscal responsibility. If it was, Republicans would not have run up the deficit under W by trillions of dollars with two unpaid wars, unpaid Medicare prescription plan, and the Bush tax cuts.
Why would the government do this? In their announcement, the feds were pretty clear: "for surplus removal." In other words, since the poultry meat industry produced more chickens than it could sell, the government will step in and provide a cushy taxpayer bailout.
What if I told you about a $1.3 trillion disaster passed mostly under a contortion of the Senate rules known as "reconciliation" and signed into law by a new, untested president whose legitimacy was questioned by millions?
The oil giant BP paid for cleanup and compensation for their massive Gulf oil spill, and rightfully so. But was this a "necessary and ordinary cost of doing business" that deserved a $10 billion tax break? I think most of us would respond with a resounding, "no!"
By leaning on taxpayers, these chains are gaining an unfair financial advantage over more responsible businesses. The public cost of ensuring that employees of these companies have health insurance and enough to live on represents, in effect, a hidden corporate subsidy.