One problem with the Internet is folks like myself, who like to write, tend to start projects and then watch them fall to the wayside. Writing is hard work. But writing regularly is the hardest.
I already have two other blogs I maintain and have had difficulty remaining prolific with either of them over the years, but this blog... here on blogger... has suffered from the most neglect. I think in part it is because I never outlined or stumbled upon a theme... an underlying current... under which this blog would be run.
I think having a theme is important. I think it helps focus the writer (that's me) and adds a construct by which we can contemplate new and hopefully exciting entries over time. Without a theme or focus it's simply too easy to wander and wind up all over the place.
Ultimately I don't think that's good for the writer, but worse for the reader. After all, the reader needs to be engaged and unless you are writing about something of interest to them they aren't going to come back. And without a theme why would they bother anyway? Unless you're one of those very brilliant writers who can write humorously about anything...
So I need to make some decisions here. I either need to focus this blog on something in particular, close it, or use it to parrot one of my other blogs to add presence here on blogger as well as WordPress.
Such fun, eh?
2011/07/21
2009/08/04
Speaking of not getting it right...
Enjoyed listening to the talking heads on Faux News make light of the quick depletion of funds set-aside by the Federal government for the Cash For Clunkers programme.
It seems that besides poo-poo'ing the whole programme as just another Obama the Socialist handout, it's now fun to mock the programme for its own success as folks lined up, as it were, to take advantage of the programme.
Comments like, and I'm paraphrasing of course, "If the government can't run a small programme like this how can we trust them to run a national healthcare system?" or my more favoured one "They (the Feds) completely blew the estimates of how many folks would take advantage of the programme. We sure can't trust THIS administration to get anything right."
I mention the second one because it reminded me of all the things folks like Donald Rumsfeld said when they were pitching what would become the Iraq war to the American people and Congress. You remember...things like it would take 6-weeks to 6-months...reconstruction would be paid for by Iraq through oil revenue...we would be greeted as liberators...you know: GETTING EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG!
So, would I rather have in the White House an administration who got the estimates wrong about the number of folks who would take advantage of a cash-for-clunkers programme or an administration who got everything wrong, costing us billions upon billions of dollars and the lives of over 3,000 U.S. soldiers and tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
I'll take the Socialist any day of the week.
It seems that besides poo-poo'ing the whole programme as just another Obama the Socialist handout, it's now fun to mock the programme for its own success as folks lined up, as it were, to take advantage of the programme.
Comments like, and I'm paraphrasing of course, "If the government can't run a small programme like this how can we trust them to run a national healthcare system?" or my more favoured one "They (the Feds) completely blew the estimates of how many folks would take advantage of the programme. We sure can't trust THIS administration to get anything right."
I mention the second one because it reminded me of all the things folks like Donald Rumsfeld said when they were pitching what would become the Iraq war to the American people and Congress. You remember...things like it would take 6-weeks to 6-months...reconstruction would be paid for by Iraq through oil revenue...we would be greeted as liberators...you know: GETTING EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG!
So, would I rather have in the White House an administration who got the estimates wrong about the number of folks who would take advantage of a cash-for-clunkers programme or an administration who got everything wrong, costing us billions upon billions of dollars and the lives of over 3,000 U.S. soldiers and tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
I'll take the Socialist any day of the week.
2009/06/11
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should
Over the last year or so I have read countless articles in the media whereby blame has been assigned and/or delegated to a variety of parties regarding the financial "meltdown". Blame has been assigned, but not limited to: the SEC, President Clinton, President G.W. Bush, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, sub-prime mortgage borrowers, sub-prime mortgage lenders, Congress, the Democrats, the Republicans, CEOs, the poor...and the list goes on and on. Also blamed has been Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, greed, Wall Street, etc.
No doubt an argument could be made to blame each and every one of these persons or entities (heck, it's already been done, right?), but the problem I have with all this blame is that it doesn't really get to the root cause of the problems we currently see. I believe that greed is the closest descriptor that truly captures the basis for all the problems we are seeing with our economy, but is it really greed or something close to it?
Instead, I've recently formulated my own idea regarding what has been going on in the financial sector that has brought us to the current state of affairs. I think greed is a strong component of the problem, but closer to the source is what I have outlined in this post's title: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Lots of things were done to help get us into this mess. Rules were changed, relaxed, done away with, modified, etc. to allow for what everyone hoped would be a better flow of capital from one place to another: the heart of free enterprise. No doubt some of these moves were intelligent, some political and some social, but just because someone can do something doesn't mean they should.
Looking back at the relaxation of standards for both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (as a means to help more Americans own a home) we can see that this was meant to be a social policy with nothing but the best of intentions. Yet, the relaxation of standards was perverted (and in a grand scale) to become a money-making machine for certain mortgage lenders. After all, what impetus is there for the lender to be careful and prudent when they can sell-off the loan and not have to worry about whether or not the buyer could actually make payments for the life of the loan.
Certainly this is, in no small part, a component of greed: making money for one's self without regard for the bigger picture, but the bottom line was that mortgage lenders did not have to go down this path. They could have elected to work within the letter and intent of the new regulations, but opted to not do so. They could, but didn't need to.
I'm actually tired of reading article after article whereby the author attempts to explain why Person A or Governmental Entity B (or some combination thereof) is responsible for this current mess. Each author has his/her own political agenda. Each author has their own area of expertise and may make generalizations about areas of which they do not have sufficient knowledge. Instead I think it makes far more sense to place the blame at the local level as opposed to the national level where most blame seems to focus.
Let us look at the individual loan officers, credit rating agency employees, and the like as the main culprits. They may have operated within the letter of the law, but clearly they knew what they were doing was wrong and they should have stood up, en mass, and said "No." to their overlords. They should have said "This is wrong and we will not be a party to it." But I guess that is easier said than done. Especially when one realizes that their gainful employment may very well be based upon their performance.
No doubt an argument could be made to blame each and every one of these persons or entities (heck, it's already been done, right?), but the problem I have with all this blame is that it doesn't really get to the root cause of the problems we currently see. I believe that greed is the closest descriptor that truly captures the basis for all the problems we are seeing with our economy, but is it really greed or something close to it?
Instead, I've recently formulated my own idea regarding what has been going on in the financial sector that has brought us to the current state of affairs. I think greed is a strong component of the problem, but closer to the source is what I have outlined in this post's title: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Lots of things were done to help get us into this mess. Rules were changed, relaxed, done away with, modified, etc. to allow for what everyone hoped would be a better flow of capital from one place to another: the heart of free enterprise. No doubt some of these moves were intelligent, some political and some social, but just because someone can do something doesn't mean they should.
Looking back at the relaxation of standards for both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (as a means to help more Americans own a home) we can see that this was meant to be a social policy with nothing but the best of intentions. Yet, the relaxation of standards was perverted (and in a grand scale) to become a money-making machine for certain mortgage lenders. After all, what impetus is there for the lender to be careful and prudent when they can sell-off the loan and not have to worry about whether or not the buyer could actually make payments for the life of the loan.
Certainly this is, in no small part, a component of greed: making money for one's self without regard for the bigger picture, but the bottom line was that mortgage lenders did not have to go down this path. They could have elected to work within the letter and intent of the new regulations, but opted to not do so. They could, but didn't need to.
I'm actually tired of reading article after article whereby the author attempts to explain why Person A or Governmental Entity B (or some combination thereof) is responsible for this current mess. Each author has his/her own political agenda. Each author has their own area of expertise and may make generalizations about areas of which they do not have sufficient knowledge. Instead I think it makes far more sense to place the blame at the local level as opposed to the national level where most blame seems to focus.
Let us look at the individual loan officers, credit rating agency employees, and the like as the main culprits. They may have operated within the letter of the law, but clearly they knew what they were doing was wrong and they should have stood up, en mass, and said "No." to their overlords. They should have said "This is wrong and we will not be a party to it." But I guess that is easier said than done. Especially when one realizes that their gainful employment may very well be based upon their performance.
2009/06/03
Lo...I Am Sloth
What a nasty cycle...I'm depressed, but was able to keep up my spirits by feeling as if I was accomplishing things by keeping the house clean, reading, working on projects about the house, etc.
But as time went by and my unemployment situation became more and more permanent, the sense of accomplishment I used to feel began to wane regardless of what I did about and for the house.
Now, I can't/won't/don't find any solace in such work and eschew it whenever possible. And this makes me feel even worse, which makes no sense whatsoever and complete sense at the same time.
What is a middle-aged guy to do, eh?
But as time went by and my unemployment situation became more and more permanent, the sense of accomplishment I used to feel began to wane regardless of what I did about and for the house.
Now, I can't/won't/don't find any solace in such work and eschew it whenever possible. And this makes me feel even worse, which makes no sense whatsoever and complete sense at the same time.
What is a middle-aged guy to do, eh?
2009/03/03
Pile Driving Blue Jays
Two years ago I installed upon our back deck a pair of squirrel feeders. Nice contraptions made of metal (wood-made ones supposedly promote gnawing and we sure don’t want that!), which I fill with in-the-shell peanuts each and every day. The peanuts aren’t cheap, but they aren’t uber expensive either. A 25-pound box costs, with tax, about $28 and the box lasts three weeks at most.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t completely altruistic of me. I do enjoy helping the wildlife, but I’m equally motivated by providing the cats something to watch. The cats just love (and I do mean love) watching the squirrels, the birds (we have bird feeders too) and the chipmunks, who also love to eat the peanuts. The cats can sit at the sliding glass door for hours and enjoy the show of hopping birds, tail-twitching squirrels and scampering chipmunks. Damn if it isn’t great!
But there has been a darker side to this programme of wildlife feeding/cat porn. The squirrel feeders include openings which are backed by clear plastic, thus making it possible for the squirrels and chipmunks to see the peanuts. But this winter I noticed that the clear plastic was frequently being broken, which was both new and, I thought, unusual. How and/or why would the squirrels or chipmunks be breaking the plastic? Then one day I noticed a blue jay pounding the living shit out of the clear plastic and breaking it.
Huh?
A blue jay wanted at the peanuts? “Odd,” thought I. I didn’t know they even liked peanuts, but I could understand that if they did they would feel so inclined to break the plastic to be able to get to the peanuts, where the squirrels and chipmunks just lift the lid. Other than being irritated that they were breaking the plastic I didn’t think much about it. To be frank I thought it was just some errant blue jay with some preoccupation with the peanuts. But I was wrong.
In the past few weeks the number of blue jays visiting our back deck, and the squirrel feeders in particular, has increased rather dramatically. Instead of a few showing up during the course of the day I’ve seen maybe seven or eight separate blue jays coming to visit the squirrel feeder. And this certainly makes me happy as the blue jay is my most favourite bird. I love both its look and song very much. But I’m not particularly interested in the blue jay stealing these peanuts! However, this morning I saw something unusual, which caused me to take action!
As I sat upon the couch in the t.v. room this morning I had the opportunity to watch a blue jay land upon the west lawn. He had a peanut in his bill and upon lighting on the ground he set to pile driving the poor peanut into the soil. “What?!” I said aloud as I watched him beat the living shit out of the peanut. When he was satisfied that the peanut was properly buried he hopped around, collecting bits of dried leaves, which he promptly used to cover the spot where he buried the peanut.
Seeing this I began watching some of the other blue jays who were visiting the squirrel feeder. A number of them would grab a peanut, fly off into some other part of the back yard (or my neighbor’s back yard) and proceed to pile drive their peanut as well.
This was too much. I needed information so I phoned my local Audubon society to which I am a member. I asked to speak to their resident blue jay expert and this kind and informative young man explained to me that indeed, blue jays LOVE peanuts. I couldn’t put out a more powerful blue jay attracting food than peanuts according to him. He also confirmed that that they love to cache food in all sorts of places, including burying in the ground.
He further explained that blue jays are highly intelligent, very social (with other blue jays) and rather skittish of humans, which I had already noticed via my efforts to photograph them (quite unsuccessfully). But the important thing for me is that I now know and understood that these peanut-stealing blue jays are not just carrying them off for no reason, but because they love to eat them. It feels good to know that I’m helping yet another woodland creature.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t completely altruistic of me. I do enjoy helping the wildlife, but I’m equally motivated by providing the cats something to watch. The cats just love (and I do mean love) watching the squirrels, the birds (we have bird feeders too) and the chipmunks, who also love to eat the peanuts. The cats can sit at the sliding glass door for hours and enjoy the show of hopping birds, tail-twitching squirrels and scampering chipmunks. Damn if it isn’t great!
But there has been a darker side to this programme of wildlife feeding/cat porn. The squirrel feeders include openings which are backed by clear plastic, thus making it possible for the squirrels and chipmunks to see the peanuts. But this winter I noticed that the clear plastic was frequently being broken, which was both new and, I thought, unusual. How and/or why would the squirrels or chipmunks be breaking the plastic? Then one day I noticed a blue jay pounding the living shit out of the clear plastic and breaking it.
Huh?
A blue jay wanted at the peanuts? “Odd,” thought I. I didn’t know they even liked peanuts, but I could understand that if they did they would feel so inclined to break the plastic to be able to get to the peanuts, where the squirrels and chipmunks just lift the lid. Other than being irritated that they were breaking the plastic I didn’t think much about it. To be frank I thought it was just some errant blue jay with some preoccupation with the peanuts. But I was wrong.
In the past few weeks the number of blue jays visiting our back deck, and the squirrel feeders in particular, has increased rather dramatically. Instead of a few showing up during the course of the day I’ve seen maybe seven or eight separate blue jays coming to visit the squirrel feeder. And this certainly makes me happy as the blue jay is my most favourite bird. I love both its look and song very much. But I’m not particularly interested in the blue jay stealing these peanuts! However, this morning I saw something unusual, which caused me to take action!
As I sat upon the couch in the t.v. room this morning I had the opportunity to watch a blue jay land upon the west lawn. He had a peanut in his bill and upon lighting on the ground he set to pile driving the poor peanut into the soil. “What?!” I said aloud as I watched him beat the living shit out of the peanut. When he was satisfied that the peanut was properly buried he hopped around, collecting bits of dried leaves, which he promptly used to cover the spot where he buried the peanut.
Seeing this I began watching some of the other blue jays who were visiting the squirrel feeder. A number of them would grab a peanut, fly off into some other part of the back yard (or my neighbor’s back yard) and proceed to pile drive their peanut as well.
This was too much. I needed information so I phoned my local Audubon society to which I am a member. I asked to speak to their resident blue jay expert and this kind and informative young man explained to me that indeed, blue jays LOVE peanuts. I couldn’t put out a more powerful blue jay attracting food than peanuts according to him. He also confirmed that that they love to cache food in all sorts of places, including burying in the ground.
He further explained that blue jays are highly intelligent, very social (with other blue jays) and rather skittish of humans, which I had already noticed via my efforts to photograph them (quite unsuccessfully). But the important thing for me is that I now know and understood that these peanut-stealing blue jays are not just carrying them off for no reason, but because they love to eat them. It feels good to know that I’m helping yet another woodland creature.
2009/02/23
The WSJ points the finger at....
Oh the hypocrisy of it all.
Everyone and their mother has an opinion regarding how we, and much of the rest of the First World, wound up in the current economic mess/crisis/disaster/(insert your preferred word here). And leave it to the ever-so-smart folks at the Wall Street Journal to have their scapegoat as well: the Federal government.
Take a peak at the article titled "Synchronized Boom, Synchronized Bust" by Marc Faber over at the WSJ website:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491436689503909.html
It's quite short, but it really doesn't take much time to skewer the government.
It would seem that all our current financial woes were due to poor insight and planning by the federal government; the Federal Reserve in particular. Nothing to do with Wall Street. Of course not. Perish the thought.
Funny though....while the article (and the many commentators that followed) talk about run up during the boon times there isn't anything stated to indicate that Wall Street had any problem with the policies that led to the boon times. The sharp criticism for poor Fed policy only seems to come now: during the bust.
Why exactly is that?
Could it be that as long as there was a boon and folks working in and on Wall Street were making money hand-over-fist there was absolutely no reason to point out the alleged folly of Federal Reserve policy? I mean, why tip over the apple cart when the eating is so good, right?
But now that things have gone awry the best thing Wall Street can do is stick out it's collective hand for a collective hand-out, and then point the finger of blame at the very folks saving their asses today.
Amazing.
I don't know how they do it. They truly must have brass ones.
Everyone and their mother has an opinion regarding how we, and much of the rest of the First World, wound up in the current economic mess/crisis/disaster/(insert your preferred word here). And leave it to the ever-so-smart folks at the Wall Street Journal to have their scapegoat as well: the Federal government.
Take a peak at the article titled "Synchronized Boom, Synchronized Bust" by Marc Faber over at the WSJ website:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491436689503909.html
It's quite short, but it really doesn't take much time to skewer the government.
It would seem that all our current financial woes were due to poor insight and planning by the federal government; the Federal Reserve in particular. Nothing to do with Wall Street. Of course not. Perish the thought.
Funny though....while the article (and the many commentators that followed) talk about run up during the boon times there isn't anything stated to indicate that Wall Street had any problem with the policies that led to the boon times. The sharp criticism for poor Fed policy only seems to come now: during the bust.
Why exactly is that?
Could it be that as long as there was a boon and folks working in and on Wall Street were making money hand-over-fist there was absolutely no reason to point out the alleged folly of Federal Reserve policy? I mean, why tip over the apple cart when the eating is so good, right?
But now that things have gone awry the best thing Wall Street can do is stick out it's collective hand for a collective hand-out, and then point the finger of blame at the very folks saving their asses today.
Amazing.
I don't know how they do it. They truly must have brass ones.
2009/02/13
Don't mess with Texas.....because you'll get salmonella
If you have been following the news at all in recent weeks you will be well aware of the salmonella outbreak that has resulted in over 600 illnesses and potentially 8 deaths. These illnesses and deaths have been traced to peanut products processed by Peanut Corp. of America's Georgia facility and potentially its Plainview, Texas facility as well.
First, let me state that I do not believe that only the higher ups in Peanut Corp. of America should be hung by their tits and testicles in a public forum. No. I think all the employees at these plants should join the bosses. I don't believe for one minute that these employees didn't know what was going on (the filth, the rats, the feces, etc.) and elected to do nothing. No whistle-blowing to the appropriate authorities and/or agencies. No anonymous reports to local news organizations. Nothing. They are just as guilty and should suffer the same consequences as do their bosses and managers; which I really believe should be a public hanging.
Second, let's hear it for good ol Texas. Yep. That bastion of "Don't mess with Texas,". That "Hey! We gave you W. Weren't you lucky?!" That state that makes it alright to shoot and kill a person in the process of repossessing your automobile. Yep. Texas.
How about this bit of news from the folks who are supposed to be watching out for the health and welfare of fellow Texans, "The plant in the Panhandle city of Plainview, which employs about 30 people, must close indefinitely after operating unlicensed and uninspected for nearly four years since it opened in 2005." (courtesy of http://www.wsbtv.com/news/18707694/detail.html#-)
Look at that again: unlicensed and uninspected for at least three years. Okay. One could make a variety of excuses as to why this plant remained both unlicensed and uninspected for so long, but check out this additional information from the same article, "David W. Evans, executive director of the Hale County Industrial Foundation, said the company was lured to the area with tax breaks and
incentives for maintaining an employee quota. He said that quota wasn't met." So it is clear that the State of Texas, and whatever other local taxing authorities were involved in this deal, were well aware that the plant both existed and was in operation during this time period, yet somehow the state and/or local authorities never bothered to ask themselves "Hey? Is the plant licensed? Has it been inspected since starting operations?" But don't worry because it gets even better.
Again, from the same article, "Health department spokesman Doug McBride said it was up to Peanut Corp. to inform its clients of the recall, but it wasn't immediately clear if the company was complying."
Can I get a What The Fuck?
Let me get this straight, the Texas department of Health wants the company who has been knowingly selling tainted peanut products without a license or inspection to exercise due diligence and notify its customers that they need to return any and all of Peanut Corp. of America's products. (when I say "knowingly" I should add an allegedly, but I think we can all agree that they knew based upon what has come out thus far in news reports)
Huh? Are you fucking kidding me? This is an example of the full power of the Texas Department of Health? This is an example of the Department of Health's concern for further potential victims of this salmonella outbreak? Jesus fucking tap-dancing christ.
Amazing. But should we expect anything more from a state that put in an express lane for executing prisoners when the rest of the nation has found many death penalty inmates to be not-guilty after DNA evidence has been examined when such wasn't possible during the original trial? Go Texas!
But this story isn't just about corporate greed, corruption, laissez fair employees and Texas being pretty much at the bottom of any semblance of intelligence. No. It's actually a story with two concerns.
Let us return to one of the above quotes, but jump right to the most interesting part, "...the company was lured to the area with tax breaks and incentives for
maintaining an employee quota. He said that quota wasn't met." If you follow the news on a regular basis you will regularly, and sometimes frequently, come across articles about how governments (local, county and/or state) will offer companies all sorts of incentives to lure them to build plants/open stores in their tax district. Often they will cut or completely remove things like impact fees, corporate income tax, offer to build roads, etc. on based upon the notion that if you can attract a business to your community it will, even with all the tax/fee breaks, generate income through employment.
Really?
I have yet to read one single news piece that has researched whether or not this policy of rolling out the red carpet actually results in a net benefit to the tax base for any given location across this nation. The Peanunt Corp. of America clearly received some sort of incentives to locate to Plainview, but it also (apparently) didn't live up to part of the bargain. So what was done about this issue? Did the relevant taxing authorities come in and say "Sorry. You haven't lived up to your end of the bargain/our expectations, so you need to start paying property taxes/income taxes/reimburse us for those impact fees we waived." Do you really think this is happening? I don't.
I think companies go out of their way to convince government authorities that offering all those breaks to attract them will help grow the local economy through employment, sales taxes, employment taxes, etc., but I haven't seen anything in the way of a study done to show whether or not this sort of sweet-heart deal actually results in a benefit to the taxing authorities. Not one. And here is an example where a company hasn't lived up to it's promise, but nothing is done and I want to know why. Actually the people of Texas should be asking why.
But it seems pretty clear that Texans aren't on the ball anyway.
First, let me state that I do not believe that only the higher ups in Peanut Corp. of America should be hung by their tits and testicles in a public forum. No. I think all the employees at these plants should join the bosses. I don't believe for one minute that these employees didn't know what was going on (the filth, the rats, the feces, etc.) and elected to do nothing. No whistle-blowing to the appropriate authorities and/or agencies. No anonymous reports to local news organizations. Nothing. They are just as guilty and should suffer the same consequences as do their bosses and managers; which I really believe should be a public hanging.
Second, let's hear it for good ol Texas. Yep. That bastion of "Don't mess with Texas,". That "Hey! We gave you W. Weren't you lucky?!" That state that makes it alright to shoot and kill a person in the process of repossessing your automobile. Yep. Texas.
How about this bit of news from the folks who are supposed to be watching out for the health and welfare of fellow Texans, "The plant in the Panhandle city of Plainview, which employs about 30 people, must close indefinitely after operating unlicensed and uninspected for nearly four years since it opened in 2005." (courtesy of http://www.wsbtv.com/news/18707694/detail.html#-)
Look at that again: unlicensed and uninspected for at least three years. Okay. One could make a variety of excuses as to why this plant remained both unlicensed and uninspected for so long, but check out this additional information from the same article, "David W. Evans, executive director of the Hale County Industrial Foundation, said the company was lured to the area with tax breaks and
incentives for maintaining an employee quota. He said that quota wasn't met." So it is clear that the State of Texas, and whatever other local taxing authorities were involved in this deal, were well aware that the plant both existed and was in operation during this time period, yet somehow the state and/or local authorities never bothered to ask themselves "Hey? Is the plant licensed? Has it been inspected since starting operations?" But don't worry because it gets even better.
Again, from the same article, "Health department spokesman Doug McBride said it was up to Peanut Corp. to inform its clients of the recall, but it wasn't immediately clear if the company was complying."
Can I get a What The Fuck?
Let me get this straight, the Texas department of Health wants the company who has been knowingly selling tainted peanut products without a license or inspection to exercise due diligence and notify its customers that they need to return any and all of Peanut Corp. of America's products. (when I say "knowingly" I should add an allegedly, but I think we can all agree that they knew based upon what has come out thus far in news reports)
Huh? Are you fucking kidding me? This is an example of the full power of the Texas Department of Health? This is an example of the Department of Health's concern for further potential victims of this salmonella outbreak? Jesus fucking tap-dancing christ.
Amazing. But should we expect anything more from a state that put in an express lane for executing prisoners when the rest of the nation has found many death penalty inmates to be not-guilty after DNA evidence has been examined when such wasn't possible during the original trial? Go Texas!
But this story isn't just about corporate greed, corruption, laissez fair employees and Texas being pretty much at the bottom of any semblance of intelligence. No. It's actually a story with two concerns.
Let us return to one of the above quotes, but jump right to the most interesting part, "...the company was lured to the area with tax breaks and incentives for
maintaining an employee quota. He said that quota wasn't met." If you follow the news on a regular basis you will regularly, and sometimes frequently, come across articles about how governments (local, county and/or state) will offer companies all sorts of incentives to lure them to build plants/open stores in their tax district. Often they will cut or completely remove things like impact fees, corporate income tax, offer to build roads, etc. on based upon the notion that if you can attract a business to your community it will, even with all the tax/fee breaks, generate income through employment.
Really?
I have yet to read one single news piece that has researched whether or not this policy of rolling out the red carpet actually results in a net benefit to the tax base for any given location across this nation. The Peanunt Corp. of America clearly received some sort of incentives to locate to Plainview, but it also (apparently) didn't live up to part of the bargain. So what was done about this issue? Did the relevant taxing authorities come in and say "Sorry. You haven't lived up to your end of the bargain/our expectations, so you need to start paying property taxes/income taxes/reimburse us for those impact fees we waived." Do you really think this is happening? I don't.
I think companies go out of their way to convince government authorities that offering all those breaks to attract them will help grow the local economy through employment, sales taxes, employment taxes, etc., but I haven't seen anything in the way of a study done to show whether or not this sort of sweet-heart deal actually results in a benefit to the taxing authorities. Not one. And here is an example where a company hasn't lived up to it's promise, but nothing is done and I want to know why. Actually the people of Texas should be asking why.
But it seems pretty clear that Texans aren't on the ball anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
