Sunday, February 17, 2013
Michigan's Sales Taxes On Fuel Aren't Spent On Roads!
Oi, just when you thought everything was so simply dissected, you find out it's not. It turns out that Michigan's sales tax on gasoline, distinct from its excise tax on gasoline, is by law earmarked for something other than roads, according to this story for mlive.com by Jonathan Oosting:
[A]ccording to Lance T. Binoniemi of the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, ... the state collects sales tax on fuel but does not earmark any of that revenue for roads.
"It's the biggest public policy problem we have," Binoniemi said today during a joint session of the Senate and House transportation committees. "The general public does not understand that the 6 percent tax does not go to funding roads and bridges. When you include that sales tax, we probably do have one of the highest (gas tax rates) in the nation." ...
Michigan is amongst a handful of states that levies a sales tax on motor fuel sales, but it does not dedicate any of that revenue to road funding. Most Michigan sales tax is constitutionally earmarked for schools and revenue sharing, while a small amount collected from fuel and automotive products is statutorily earmarked for public transportation. State law currently requires retailers to pre-pay sales tax on gasoline based on a projected per-gallon cost set quarterly (and soon, monthly) by the state Treasury. Those rates are based on the price after the federal excise tax but before the state excise tax.
Obviously one cannot simply substitute a general sales tax increase for a fuel tax increase and spend it all on roads when that increase as applied to fuel sales would sequester it and spend it on something else because the Michigan constitution requires it. Gov. Snyder doesn't really have much of a near term choice for increased road funding but to resort to an increase in the excise portion of the tax on fuel. Longer term the constitution would have to be amended, alas.
This is why one should not be amending the constitution for legislative purposes in the first place, an especially bad habit in Michigan where everyone wants to resort to that nuclear option for every pet project and crackpot idea. The result is chaos, confusion, unreason, inflexibility and disorder.
What's a legislature for if not to raise or reduce taxes and defend that at reelection time? Enshrining minutiae like what the 6% sales tax on fuel must be spent on in the constitution simply allows legislators to escape the political consequences of that allocation, which I'm guessing is why so much of Michigan politics seems to get shuffled off to the referendum process, otherwise known, at best, as direct democracy, at worst, as mob rule.
Pretty cowardly when you get down to it.
Labels:
democracy,
Excise Tax,
gasoline taxes,
MLIVE,
Rick Snyder,
Sales Tax
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Give Us A President So Depressed He Can Hardly Get Out Of Bed
So opines Gene Healy for Reason, here:
[T]he conventional wisdom overvalues presidents who enjoy the job. In his influential 1972 book The Presidential Character, political scientist James David Barber argued that we should pick presidents by their personality type. The "active-positive" president—the ideal voters should seek—tackles the job with manic energy and zest and "gives forth the feeling that he has fun in political life." The "passive-negative" sees the office as a matter of stern duty, and his "tendency is to withdraw." Among Barber's "active-positives" were troublemakers FDR, Truman, and JFK; his "passive-negatives" included the Cincinnatus-like figures Washington, Eisenhower, and, of course, Coolidge. Maybe we should only give the job to people who are so depressed they can barely get out of bed.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Russia Violated 2010 START Agreement In June 2012
The noisiest military aircraft on earth carries long range cruise missiles. |
So reports The Washington Free Beacon, here:
[I]n June ... two Bear H’s ran up against the air defense zone near Alaska as part of large-scale strategic exercises that Moscow said involved simulated attacks on U.S. missile defense bases. The Pentagon operates missile defense bases in Alaska and California.
Those flights triggered the scrambling of U.S. and Canadian interceptor jets as well.
The bomber flights near Alaska violated a provision of the 2010 New START arms treaty that requires advance notification of exercises involving strategic nuclear bombers.
The story at the link details a more recent, highly unusual, deployment of two such bombers to spook Guam.
The story at the link details a more recent, highly unusual, deployment of two such bombers to spook Guam.
The Best Reason To Oppose Sen. Chuck Hagel For SECDEF
It's not because he's anti-Semitic.
It's not because he flipped on the Iraq War and opposed The Surge.
It's not because of an anti-gay slur.
It's not because he made such a hash of his confirmation hearing.
It's because he'll dutifully dismantle the American military for his boss, thus enabling Democrats to claim that the weakened state of the US fighting machine is the fault of Republicans.
In short, it's because Hagel's a dupe.
Make the president nominate a Democrat to dismantle the military. Republicans shouldn't let Republicans drive drunk, especially when they're puking in the car.
Charles Krauthammer Loves The Drone War, And So Do You
Here is Charles Krauthammer for National Review:
"[T]he case for Obama’s drone war is clear."
And The New York Times, here, says 71% of you approve of the drone war, too:
"And on several issues, the CBS News poll finds a majority of Americans are in the president’s corner. Most, 59 percent, back a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit; 53 percent say gun control laws should be made more strict; 53 percent support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently working in the United States; and 71 percent favor carrying out drone strikes against suspected terrorists."
It's getting pretty lonely on the extreme right when we have to look to far left people like Glenn Greenwald for friends calling for an end to this madness. One of these days a Commander in Chief will exercise a fictitious right both to declare you an insurrectionist and to snuff you out in the middle of the night as you sleep, right here in River City because, hey, the whole world's a battlefield, even Grand Rapids, Michigan. The only thing the war on terror has achieved is to reveal that most Americans already surrendered their freedoms long ago, 1861 to be precise.
Noted Lefty Calls Obama's Secrecy Orwellian and Tyrannical
Noted lefty Glenn Greenwald for the UK Guardian here calls Obama's secrecy about a CIA program to kill even Americans with drones Orwellian and tyrannical (he's right):
"[W]hat is missing from the debate is the most basic information about what the CIA does and even their claimed legal justification for doing it. The Obama administration still refuses to publicly disclose the OLC memo that purported to authorize it (they agreed two weeks ago to make it available only to certain members of Congress without staff present, thus still maintaining "secret law"). They conceal all of this - and thus prevent basic democratic accountability - based on the indescribably cynical and inane pretense that they cannot even confirm or deny the existence of the CIA program without seriously jeopardizing national security.
"This is a complete perversion of their secrecy powers. Even among the DC cliques that exist to defend US government behavior, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to defend what is being done here. The Obama administration runs around telling journalists how great and precise and devastating the CIA's assassination program is, then tells courts that no disclosure is permissible because they cannot safely confirm in court that the program even exists.
"Such flagrant abuse of secrecy power is at once Orwellian and tyrannical. It has the effect of blocking even the most minimal transparency on the most consequential question: the government's claimed authority to execute anyone it wants without charges, far from a battlefield, in total secrecy. It yet again demonstrates that excessive government secrecy is an infinitely greater threat than unauthorized disclosures. This is why we need radical transparency projects and aggressive whistle-blowers. And it's why nobody should respect the secrecy claims of the Obama administration or believe the assertions they make about national security. What else do they need to do to prove how untrustworthy those claims are?"
Labels:
drones,
England,
George Orwell,
Glenn Greenwald,
perverts,
THE GRAUNIAD
Levitt Capital Management Predicts Brent Oil At $80 By Year End
That's roughly a 30% drop from the current level of $117 for Brent. For West Texas Intermediate Crude such a drop would mean a price of $65. The prediction is based in part on rising contributions to supply from shale oil.
Story here.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
If Rep. Justin Amash Were A Real Conservative, He Wouldn't "Run" For Senate
Real conservatives want to repeal the 17th Amendment, not perpetuate it. That Rep. Amash is "'intrigued' by the prospect of going for Levin's seat" in just his second term as a representative betrays his ambition, not his conservatism. If he cared about his constituents he'd serve them, not use them as a stepping stone for his own career. He's done nothing to represent his congressional district, and he'll do nothing to represent the State of Michigan as senator. All he'll represent is his personal conception of the libertarian ideology, and not much else. If you want a mascot for your eccentricity, by all means vote for Justin Amash.
Story here.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
How About A National Minimum Wage Of $4.34 As In Obama's American Samoa?
"The first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage came in 1933, when a $0.25 per hour standard was set as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act. However, in the 1935 court case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495), the United States Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage was abolished."
So says the Wikipedia article on the minimum wage, here.
Adjusted for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index since 1933, the minimum wage in 2011 should have been just $4.34, not $7.25.
So if we should do anything, we should lower the minimum wage, not raise it to $9.00 as President Obama hypocritically calls for. I say hypocritically because President Obama already thinks the lower level around $4.00 is just fine for the residents of American Samoa, who by law make between just $2.68 and $4.69, which is where even now he aims to keep them:
On September 30, 2010, President Obama signed legislation that delays scheduled wage increases for 2010 and 2011. On July 26, 2012, President Obama signed S. 2009 into law, postponing the minimum wage increase for 2012, 2013, and 2014. Annual wage increases of $0.50 will recommence on September 30, 2015 and continue every three years until all rates have reached the federal minimum.
This is thought to be a favor to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former Democrat Speaker of the House, which keeps her business pals there (tuna canners) more profitable than they otherwise would be if they had to comply with the federal minimum wage legislation.
Claiming the mantle of the working poor is so much easier than actually vetoing a bill which keeps workers impoverished indefinitely. He didn't veto it but signed it, and the residents of American Samoa remain second class citizens as a result, under the first black president. There's a new massa in town, but it's the same old shit.
Labels:
hypocrite,
INFLATION,
minimum wage,
Nancy Pelosi,
Supreme Court 2013,
Wikipedia
The Second Difference Between Pres. Obama and Dr. Ben Carson
President Obama supported infanticide while an Illinois state senator, voting not once, not twice, not three times, but four times against a law which would protect infants born alive after failed abortions. Dr. Carson operates on 300 children a year to save their lives.
Sales Taxes Or Gasoline/Diesel Taxes, You Decide.
What you won't realize from this story, "What does an additional penny of gas tax buy in Michigan?" by Amy Lane for mlive.com, is how regressive are the fuel taxes which Michigan motorists pay compared to sales taxes.
From the story we are told:
For each penny of gas or diesel tax, Michigan gets about $45 million for transportation funding needs that include roads. ...
A penny of Michigan sales tax brings in about $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
Well, just how many pennies are we really talking about in each case?
When you buy a gallon of gasoline, Michigan collects 38.7 pennies. But when you buy two fifty cent rolls of toilet paper, Michigan collects just 6 pennies. In the latter case, your tax rate is 6%, but in the former it works out to more like 12%, double the rate. Does that make any sense?
The driver of the $35,000 SUV can probably well afford it without thinking twice, but not the driver of the Ford Focus, whom the regressive fuel tax hurts more because he's probably making a lot less than the SUV driver.
If it's true Michigan collects $45 million per penny of current fuel taxes, that means that times the 38.7 pennies Michigan is already collecting, $1.74 billion is currently available from motor fuel taxes for roads and transportation. The sales tax, on the other hand, is bringing in over $7 billion at the much lower rate, and everyone is paying it. A simple 1.5 cent increase in the sales tax could eliminate the need for the fuel tax altogether. A 2 cent increase could provide an additional $660 million for roads. To get that from a gas tax increase, you would have to hike the gasoline tax per gallon by 15 cents, which is what Gov. Snyder wants to do, plus a little more, but which punishes the little guy even more.
Against those who say road users should bear the burden of road maintenance, I say everyone who buys goods is a road user. Well over 80 percent of everything we purchase moves by road. If you don't drive, you are being subsidized by those who do everytime you buy something which moves by road, which is just about everything.
TNR Notices Obama's Recovery Benefitted Only Elites
Well, what else would you expect from a national socialist? (Obama silly, not TNR).
Tim Noah, here:
"The biggest gainers in 2011 were the bottom half of the top one percent, i.e., those making between $358,000 and $545,000. They saw their incomes increase, on average, by 1.70 percent (not much to write home about, but you've got to put a weak recovery somewhere)."
Fewer than 1 million Americans earned net compensation for Social Security purposes in that range in 2011.
Investors.com Agrees With Us: GDP Under Obama The Worst Since WWII
So Jeffrey Anderson for Investors.com, here:
"According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%. To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter. It was the worst tally achieved during any presidential term in the past 60 years."
We told you so already last October, here, in "Obama Racks Up Worst GDP Record In Post-War Period":
"But Obama comes in with a pathetic, ridiculous average report of GDP over 16 quarters of just 0.86%, over twice as bad as Bush."
Monday, February 11, 2013
Pope Resigns In Latin, UK Tabloid Can't Spell In English.
Story here.
The word is "incredulity".
How fitting an English tabloid can't spell it, since the English word is derived directly from the Latin "incredulus" for "not believing".
The cardinals in assembly, many of whom understood no Latin themselves, didn't understand what was happening:
"He announced his resignation in Latin to a meeting of Vatican cardinals this morning, saying he did not have the 'strength of mind and body' to continue leading more than a billion Roman Catholics worldwide. ... Several cardinals did not even understand what Benedict had said during the consistory, said the Reverend Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.
"Others who did were stunned.
"A cardinal who was at the meeting said: ‘We listened with a sense of incredulity as His Holiness told us of his decision to step down from the church that he so loves.’"
Well, there you go. A Pope "steps down from the church".
Dare we say, "Welcome, sir"?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Thanks for nothing, Jim Cramer
Flashback to Jim Cramer, Monday, 10/06/2008 ("Take Your Money Out Right Now"):
“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”
-- Jim Cramer, Monday morning, October 6, 2008 (before the market open)
The Friday before that outrageous, irresponsible advice was nationally televised on NBC's Today Show, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) had slumped to 26.62 from 30.90 two weeks before, not quite 14%. After his Monday call, however, the fund, a proxy for the whole market, dropped nearly 18% in that one week alone, to 21.85, on its way to its 16.60 low in March 2009. TARP, by the way, was signed into law also on that Friday before Jim opened his BIG mouth the next Monday morning.
Four years and four months since that fateful day in October 2008, VTSMX has bounced back to reach a new all time high of 38.13 as of Friday, February 8, 2013.
Your $36,700 in early October 2008 would be worth $57,300 today, a gain of 56%, if you had ignored Jim's advice.
THANKS FOR NOTHING, JIM. Not only did I need the $36,700, I needed the $20,600 gain.
Of course, Jim technically has until October of this year to be vindicated, but that presupposes a market crash from here of at least 36% to start cutting into that original pile of money I needed. But hey, I needed it, so it's not there, so no worries, right?
And what's Jim saying last week?
Look out below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)