The 13 Percent

Much has been made of the top 1% tax-filing units or as they are called the 1 %, but maybe the real issue is the 13% percent of tax-filling units or as I will call them the 13 %.  According to the IRS in 2010 there were 143,490,000 tax returns filed by tax-filing units that were not corporations.  The 1% is only composed of 1,494,900 tax-filing units with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of 507 K$ or greater.  The 13 % is composed of 18,653,700 tax-filing units with an AGI of 137 K$ or greater.  Between the 1% and the 13% there are 17,158,800 tax-filing units, which is not an insignificant number.

Who is this in between population?  In particular who is in this population that determine what does or does not happen in the United States Government?

Based on just their listed salaries we have the following breakout.

The Executive Branch: The President of the United States (400K$), The Vice President of the United States (230.7 K$), Cabinet Secretaries (191.3 K$), Cabinet Deputy Secretaries (172.2 K$), Cabinet Under Secretaries (158.5 K$), Cabinet Assistant Secretaries (149 K$), Agencies Admistrator/Commissioner (139.6 K$), General/Admiral (0-10) (184.8 K$), Lt General/Vice Admiral (0-9) (161.6 K$), Major General/Rear Admiral (UH) (147.5 K$), and Brigadier General/Rear Admiral (LH) (138.5 K$)

Judicial Branch:  Chief Justice Supreme Court (223.5 K$), Associate Justices Supreme Court (213.8 K$), Circuit Justices (184.5 K$), and District Judge ($174 K$).

Legislative Branch:  Speaker of the House (223.5 K$), Majority Leader (House/Senate) (193.4 K$), Minority Leader (House/Senate) (193.4 K$), and Member House/Senate (174 K$).

If there ever was a privileged class this has to be it.  Their AGI are greater than 86% of all tax-filing units.  For them the system is good, hell better than good it is great and for some it is just plain fantastic.  What a deal, these tax-filing units earn at least 2600 dollars a week of AGI.  Many earn much more.

While 50 % of the tax-filing units earn less than 827 dollars of AGI every week.  The in between population have at least 3 times as much AGI every week.  But it gets even better; the average member of the House or Senate weekly AGI is at least 4 times greater than the 50 % of tax-filing units.  And we wonder why the government is disconnected from the people.

There can be no doubt that the net taxes of the 1 Percent tax-filing units need to be increased.  How much the net taxes should be increased is a matter of debate.

The net taxes of the “in between population” (2-13 Percent of tax-filing units) also needs to be increased.  Again how much the net taxes should be increased is also a matter of debate.

Notice I said the net taxes, I really do not care at this point how this is accomplished, either by creating additional tax brackets and new rates for those brackets, or by removing features of the existing tax code or by a combination of both, but it really needs to be done.

That said; will it get done?  I do not hold much hope out for this in that those who occupy the House and Senate are the one who need to make it happen, and given every one of them is a member in good standing of the 13 %.  Human nature being what it is, these individuals are not willing and therefore not able to accomplish this tasks, since it would directly affect their taxes and conversely their standard of living.  These individuals have had no major issues in raising someone else taxes, be it someone who makes significantly more or be it someone who makes significantly less.  There are many ways to raise the tax that an individual pays without actually change the rate that is applied to the Adjust Gross Income.  Most if not all the changes actual deal with how the AGI is calculated, since it is real easy to get individuals upset when there is talk about changing the rate, but it is in many cases much harder to get individual upset when the talk is about the minutia of tax code, this latter is typically the path taken to increase revenue.

Make no mistake that these individuals are not dummies, they are extremely perceptive, manipulative, conniving, and in many cases self-absorbed to the point of being narcissistic.  They should not be under estimated for their ability to tell half-truths, and to ignore the evidence is legendary.  Finally they do it for a living.

The effective tax curve has been flatten, and even compressed over the past 60 years.  The political cry had been that the tax code is too complicated, and too onerous.  This was not a lie; it had been complicated and onerous to the 13 %.   To those 50 % it was never that complicated or onerous.  The 50 % tax-filing units returns have for the most part been simple, manly due to the fact they never did make very much, and what they did make was quickly spent on life basic needs, (Food, Shelter, Health, Transportation) in that they were never in a position to take advantage of the features and nuances that existed in the tax code that Congress had so thoughtful provided.

Remember the words of Balzac, “The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.” it as true to today as it was when they were penned in 1835.

What the Hell has Apple done to OSX?

What the hell has Apple done to OSX 10.7 or Lion as it is called.  It appears that you cannot delete files, and it only gets better.  Do not touch the file for two weeks and it really gets locked up.

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/07/apple_mac_os_x_lion_the_nanny_os/

Maybe this is why Steve left the company?

I am an operating system agonstic, they all have their good points and their bad points.  I have several systems running 4 different operating systems.   But this is a really glaring bad point, thankfully I did not see a reason to upgrade from 10.6 Snow Leopard.  It maybe that I stay at 10.6.  It is also a reason that I am not a first adopter, at least on the systems that I use to make my bread and butter.

No Shit Sherlock

Talk about restating the obvious Texas Governor Rick Perry

Gov. Perry: Texas fires are 'mean, swift and highly dangerous'

What was the first clue, that they have destroyed building, killed people, livestock, and wildlife.  Or was the big wall of flame and smoke.

Did they have fire at A&M when you were there?  And this guy went to college to come up with this!

I am sure glad this nincompoop is at the ready to alert all the rest of us to this situation.

Barack Hussein Obama has not been a BAD President!

Yes Mr. Alter, Barrack Hussein Obama has not been a BAD President, but by the same token he has not be an Outstanding President, Excellent President, or Good President.  He might be an Average President, or a Mediocre President, and maybe even a Poor President.  But is Barack Hussein Obama a Bad President? NO.

My bet at this time he is somewhere between Average and Mediocre, but he is putting up quite a fight to be Mediocre.  He is but one of the 544 that have a direct say in the path that the United States takes.  It takes at least 295 individuals to be with you to be able to make any change, and Barack Hussein Obama, does not have enough of the 544 individuals on his side, and in all probability he never will have enough.  He is getting a great deal of help from the other 543 individual in quest to be Mediocre.

No body starts out trying to be mediocre, it just happens.

For an individual who used Audacity in the Title of a Book

First a definition to refresh our memories.

Audacious: Intrepid Boldness, Bold or arrogant disregard of NORMAL restrains.

Synonyms: Brash, Brazen, Hutzpah.

With all due respect and admiration to William Shakespeare Act 3, Scene 2 of Julius Caesar, let me say that Barack Hussein Obama, is a very nice, and decent, honorable man.  I am sure that he is a pleasant conversationalist.  He is intelligent; He is caring; He has a sense of Justice; He is a man of Letters.  Not withstanding all of this his actions, or more precisely his lack of action to date concerning the United States Economic Crisis he should not be considered to be Audacious, or to have any audacity, by any rational individual.

It is said the Barack was impressed with “Team of Rivals”, and supposedly how Lincoln lead or managed from behind during the civil war.  That some how he made the group not only work together, but that every member of the group was an equal to the tasks, and all were contributors.  The book is a good read, but for many students of the civil war it did not fill in any missing blanks, and in some cases completely glossed over some of the real documented problem with cabinet.  The comment in John Hay diary in the summer of 1863 is one of the primary pieces indicating that all was not well in the team.  Hay relates that Lincoln had to resort to “tyrannous authority”, and that “most important things he decide & there is no cavil."  The two major reasons that Lincoln won the civil war were he had the logistics systems to support his troops in the field, and he finally found some General who could fight.   Jefferson Davis, never had the logistics system to support his troops, and he ran out unoccupied territory, and out of Generals who could fight.  The Civil War was a war of attrition.

If we are looking for an individual who will clearly defined Goals.  If we are looking for an individual who can clearly articulate these Goals.  If we require an individual who can formulate a strategy and effectively communicate the Strategy to achieve these stated Goals, then to date Barack Hussein Obama has not demonstrated that he is that person.

One can lead from the rear, and that is fine, but one must have a clearly defined goal, and then one must create and communicate to all what the strategy is for achieving these goals.  I have not heard Barack clearly define any goals on any subject, other than to keep on keeping on, or if we just hang on it will all get better some day.

It appears that Barack Hussein Obama has adopted a path to re-election, which will present to his opponents a record of actions that cannot be assaulted, since to date his record is quite absent of any real actions to assault.

The one true weapon in the arsenal of the President of the United States that Barrack Hussein Obama has fail to use is the “Bully Pulpit” as of 30 June 2011 the president has only had 3 News Conference, he has had numerous one on one interviews, but they are not quite the same as the man coming out and being pushed across the networks at the same time.

In 2010 in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Barack Hussein Obama made the following statement “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president”.  It appears that the other possibility have never been articulated by the president, and they are a mediocre first term president, and good second term president, or mediocre first term president and no second presidential term to judge.

From my position up till now it really looks like he trying to make this last option into reality.  The economy is in bad shape, and other than some platitudes about feeling our pain, his lack of leadership on the issue almost borders on malfeasants.  We have a sucking chest wound and rather than plug the hole and keep the lung from collapsing he would rather collapse a lung and have a really compromised economy for an extended period of time, rather than do anything to remediate the situation.  To date these are not the actions of a man with audacity.  I do not hold out much hope that the term audacious will be even with the loosest of interpolations be applied to the job plan Barack Hussein Obama is to be announce in the coming weeks.

For an individual who used audacity in a book title Barack Obama appears to be the antsiest of one who is audacious.

Barack Part Deux

After writing the first post of today I came across the following quote from David Bromwich article “George W. Obama” found here

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/18/opinion/main20094046.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.13

“Indeed, Obama's understanding of international morality seems to be largely expressed by the proposition that "there's serious  evil in the world" -- a truth he confided in 2007 to the New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks, and attributed to the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr -- combined with the assertion that he is ready to "face the world as it is." The world we seek is, of course, the better world of high morality. But morality, properly understood, is nothing but a framework for ideals.  Once you have discharged your duty, by saying the right words for the right policies, you have to accommodate the world.

This has become the ethic of the Bush-Obama administration in a new phase.  It explains, as nothing else does, Obama's enormous appetite for compromise, the growing conventionality of his choices of policy and person, and the legitimacy he has conferred on many radical innovations of the early Bush years by assenting to their logic and often widening their scope. They are, after all, the world as it is.

Obama's pragmatism comes down to a series of maxims that can be relied on to ratify the existing order -- any order, however recent its advent and however repulsive its effects. You must stay in power in order to go on "seeking." Therefore, in "the world as it is," you must requite evil with lesser evil. You do so to prevent your replacement by fanatics: people, for example, like those who invented the means you began by deploring but ended up adopting. Their difference from you is that they lack the vision of the seeker. Finally, in the world as it is, to retain your hold on power you must keep in place the sort of people who are normally found in places of power.”

This is the most damming indictment of the Man who would be President.  A man who it appears feels that once he has voiced his concern about an evil he has discharged his duty to mankind.  It is the mark of a man who says he has convictions about good and evil, but at the end of the day lacks the determination or the will to change the situation.  In the minds of most people this is not a leader.  I am not sure that it makes a really good follower.  On the face of it, at best he is a mediocre President.  Barack might be a great campaigner, and he might have been a good senator, given that the Senate is purported to be a deliberative body, and it appears that he like to be deliberative.  But in the area of original thinking, and conviction, well not so much.

Senators do not make very good presidents, and I feel that unless there is some miracle this ex-senator/president is destined to join the list of the poor, undistinguished.  History will remember him, but it will not be a kindly rememberance.

The following is a list of Presidents who were Senator prior to be President and their ranking. There are 14 names on the list

James Monroe 2^nd Quartile, John Quincy Adams 2^nd Quartile, Andrew Jackson 1^st Quartile, Martin Van Buren 3^rd Quartile, William Henry Harrison 4^th Quartile, John Tyler 4^th Quartile, Franklin Pierce 4^th Quartile, James Buchanan 4^th Quartile, Andrew Johnson 4^th Quartile, Benjamin Harrison 4^th Quartile, Warren G. Harding 4^th Quartile, Harry S. Truman 1^st Quartile, John F. Kennedy 2^nd Quartile, Lyndon B. Johnson 2^nd Quartile and Richard M. Nixon 3^rd Quartile.

63 percent of the Presidents ranked in the 4^th Quartile have the dubious honor of having first served in the Senate.  50 percent of the above list presidents who were senators have the dubious honor of making the 4^th Quartile.  This 4^th Quartile also has it share of Generals (2), or 66 percent of Generals who were elected President without holding any prior elected office.

So what have we learned? Senator more times than not do not make good Presidents, Generals more times than not do not make good Presidents.

Back to Barack, given a choice I think that most men would rather have tried and failed, then not tried and failed.  With the first path there is a chance of success, with the second path there is the certainty of failure.

It is my opinion that Barack when given a choice,  9 time out 10 Barack will choose the option with the certainty of failure.

Dear Barack, You cannot have it both ways (SPMUYFM).

As President you have signed an executive order freezing pay of Civil Service Employees (OK); you administration has establish a policy where there are a series of sequential rolling 90-day periods of hiring freezes (OK?). You recently signed an executive order directing federal agencies to develop strategic plans to recruit and retain a more diverse workforce (WTFAH).

Let me get this straight in my mind, no pay raises, no new hires, no promotions, and now let's play office and require each organization to develop strategic plans to recruit diverse employee's if we could hire them, and retain diverse employee's if we could pay them.  I must be as dense as a stone.  Are you sure that your chief policy adviser on this subject is not a short little guy who is red, looks like a cat who wears glasses and answers to the name Catbert?

I cannot imagine how tough your job is but if you are not up to task, just raise your hand, turn in your wings, and walk away.  From my vantage it appears that you are really in deep Kim chi, and you forgot to breath through your mouth.

If you are going to stay please make up your mine, pick a path and follow it, this jumping back and forth is nuts.  PS it is also scaring the shit out of everyone.

YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, IF YOU TRY YOU WILL BE NOTHING TO EVERYONE.

As I see it right now you are in a knife fight to the deck to gain a position in the much vaunted 4 Quartile of Presidents of the United States.  This pantheon of politicians include William Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Benjamin Harrison, Warren Harding, The every popular George W (Shrub) Bush. Every single one of which a mother would be proud and honored to name her first born failure after. 

The only question at this time is will you finish lower than the Shrub?  Out of the Jaws of victory defeat is snatched.