I was thinking the other day; if there were some way to raise awareness, as to the impact of taxes on gasoline prices. I have come up with an answer.

Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of only seeing the total cost of the fuel with tax included; we could see the tax and the cost of the fuel separate. Have the pump show the amount of fuel being pumped, cost of fuel, and added taxes.

If you think about it; the receipts for items you purchase will list some embedded taxes. Gas receipts don't show any added tax, even the sales tax is hidden.

Most people only pay attention to how much money they take home after taxes. Perhaps if gas pumps would give some indication of where the total cost is derived; more people will pay attention to how much money they are spending on taxes. I think showing the taxes would open the eyes of many people.

Just a thought...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

The government is also pursuing a separate revamping of financial-sector rules that could change industry compensation practices more broadly. For instance, the Federal Reserve is considering rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to focus on pay restrictions related to firms receiving TARP bailout funds, helping companies to interpret the rules and ensure that they are being followed.

For instance, companies have been confused about whether to pay 2008 bonuses, since restrictions on incentive pay didn't go into effect until early 2009. Some firms have made the payments while others have held off. Many firms are also unsure whether the "top earners" targeted by Congress include rank-and-file employees or just executives.

Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter.

There are companies out there right now, afraid to make-good on contracts, for fear of the law changing after the fact, and themselves being held accountable. This is a really big problem as it illustrates that those companies have no faith that the Constitution Of The United States will protect them from this administration.

United States Constitution:
Parts of two sections.

Article I

Section 9.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Many firms are also unsure whether the "top earners" targeted by Congress include rank-and-file employees or just executives. The Constitution also provides protection for individuals against direct government action. It is clearly stated in many different ways. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the power of government NOT grant it. Too many people have forgotten what the Constitution was written for, or in current times, have never even read any of it.

Another point requiring attention is the fact that the government is appointing a "czar" to oversee the implementation of pay restrictions. The scope, for now, is limited to those companies which received bailout money. If the goal was only to effect those companies which received bailout money; why would you need to appoint a czar. The U.S. Government already owns controlling interest in most of the companies involved with the bailout. The Fed could limit executive pay from the board of directors without the appointment of a czar. There is no need for a czar; that is unless the final goal is to control the pay of employees working for companies that had nothing to do with the bailout.

This is a move designed to sneak in control without people noticing. The idea is to have a bogeyman; in this case it happens to be the executives of companies. Most people have some degree of class envy; this salary control scheme plays to that envy like the sweetest music.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Here is the Merriam-Webster's definition of Moderate.

1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits "a moderate drinker" b: calm, temperate
2 a: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b: having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4: limited in scope or effect
5: not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6: of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma

There are a few things I find interesting these days. I find it interesting that the people who direct the Republican Party are completely without understanding of how the party was formed.

Most people do not like change. Change, in a controlled situation, is something that comes about because of necessity, not spontaneously. The Republican Party seems to have adopted the Obama philosophy of "change." The Republicans could have better conveyed their beliefs so people could know where they stand, but some in the party believe that's not a good idea.

I believe that the problems in the Republican party stem from those who believe that a political party should represent what is popular at the time. This is in stark contrast to the founding of the country. The United States of America was not founded on a changing principle. The founding documents state very clearly a philosophical viewpoint that has no room for "change." That is to say, not the kind of fundamental change that the American left is proposing.

The Democrat party has a problem with identity, because the party has no ideals. This is evident in the continuously changing view points of the Democrat Party leadership. A Democrat's view points change with each poll. Simply ask a Democrat voter what their party stands for.

The Republican Party has a problem with identity because they have forgotten what they were founded on. This is made evident by John McCain. John McCain stood before millions of people and could not convey what it is that he stands for. He only stated what he figured was good, or bad for the country. Republicans have forgotten that for those who don't follow politics closely -- the fact that the Republican party had a set of ideals, was the only defining difference between the two parties.

When voters looked at John McCain politically, they weren't sure what they were looking at. Contrast that with Sarah Palin. People could connect easily with Palin, people felt they knew what Sarah Palin stood for. Palin pointed out the differences in how she viewed issues vs. how her opponent viewed issues.

McCain just sat back and said that he wasn't going to run a "negative" campaign. What McCain did was allow his opponent to set the grounds for discussion, or narrative. McCain was constantly on defense. McCain was useless in pointing out the differences in his policy vs. Obama's policy, Obama could just fabricate a position for McCain. McCain would then have to explain how this was not his position, before even attempting to convey his actual views. This made McCain appear as if he didn't know what he was doing, and he looked defensive most of the time, or like he was lying.

Republican voters want to know what they are voting for. Democrats seem not to care so much, as long as they "feel good" about their decision. Moderates don't care either way as long as they can avoid the subject of politics altogether.

The use of the term Moderate also strikes me as interesting. For one to take a moderate approach to politics -- one must remain uninformed. Moderates won't stand for anything. After all, moderates stand in the middle on most issues.

Somehow the McCain campaign got the idea that by standing for nothing, they could beat the opponent who "seemed" to stand for something. By using the term Moderate, the McCain campaign effectively conveyed that McCain was not going to take a stance on any issue. This, I believe, caused McCain to loose the Republican vote.

The truth is, there are two major political parties which have the potential to win in a presidential election. The Republican party went out of its way to gain the votes of individuals who belong to neither of those two parties. Hopefully they won't make that mistake again.

A Moderate by definition is just another "half-ass."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I am by no stretch a conspiracy theory believer, or generator. I have heard people who think that Barack Obama is a plant by overseas leaders to weaken the United States. Some people believe that Obama is not even legally president; they question his legality as a United States Citizen. Some argue that he is really a Muslim here to help facilitate the takeover of the United States by Muslim followers.

I'm not saying that I agree with any of the conspiracy theories, but I do find some of his resent policy decisions dangerous and potentially harmful to the country.

Many people don't know that European culture is in trouble. The birth rate of many European countries fall bellow that which is necessary to maintain the traditional culture in those nations.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx

March/April 2003

Whether Brussels, Berlin, Paris, or Washington like it or not, Europe?s Muslim constituencies are likely to become an even more vocal foreign policy lobby. Two trends are empowering Europe?s Muslim street: demographics and opportunities for full citizenship.

It?s worth remembering that Europe?s Muslim population is an unintended consequence of actions taken nearly a half century ago. During the postwar labor shortage in the 1950s and 1960s, Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were called to help spur Europe?s economic recovery. No host country expected these "guest workers", as the Germans called them with characteristic frankness, to overstay their welcome. Like all good guests, they were supposed to leave, preferably when the recession hit and the party was over in the 1970s. They didn't. Instead, their families joined them, and new generations of European Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Pakistanis were born.

More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

A parallel process of Muslim enfranchisement is accompanying this population surge. Nearly half of the 5 million to 7 million Muslims in France are already French citizens. The situation is similar for most of the 2 million Muslims in Great Britain. Most recently, in 2000, Germany joined the countries where citizenship is granted according to birthplace instead of ancestry. The new German citizenship laws added already a half million voters to the rolls and have opened the road to citizenship to all other Muslims in Germany. With currently 160,000 new Muslim citizens a year, the number of voters might total 3 million in the next decade.

France has the largest population of Muslims in Europe. A large part of those Muslims in France are French citizens. If the current trend is maintained, the nations of Europe will be a inhabited by majority Muslim populations.

How can a Muslim household reproduce at such a high rate as opposed to the traditional French household? The thing that these European countries have in common is their Socialist societies. European countries with the highest Muslim birthrates also have the most liberal social safety systems. How else can you have a group of people reproducing so quickly in a country like France where the economy is stagnant. There are few jobs available in France, so how do you support a family when jobs are so scarce? The answer is, You Don't. The social system there is going to take care of you.

This is a growing problem in Europe, because as the number of Muslim citizens increase, so does their voting and political power.

In the U.K. some courts have adopted Sharia law. This means that British law is secondary to Islamic law in certain parts of the country.

Germany has implemented a test in an attempt to limit citizenship to those who hold the traditional values of Germans.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/world/fg-test9

In Germany, Citizenship Tests Stir Up Muslims, and Cultural Debate April 09, 2006

Islamic communities throughout this country are beginning to wonder. What it means to be German is an excruciating riddle, not something casually broached in a cafe. But efforts to sharpen national identity through new citizenship tests have caused a furor over accusations that Muslims are being unfairly targeted for exclusion by questions concerning head scarves, arranged marriages, homosexuality and Israel's right to exist.

The tests are the latest point of contention in a cultural battle over the integration of millions of Muslims on a continent wary of terrorist attacks, such as the ones in London and Madrid. They are another indication that Europe is struggling with how to temper nationalism and anxiety while defining citizenship for an immigrant Muslim population restless over what it views as generations of discrimination.

"These tests are presupposing, negative and anti-Islamic," said Eren Unsal, a sociologist and member of the Turkish Union, a German-Turkish lobbying and educational organization based in Berlin. "What we're seeing is a more restrictive immigration policy whose face is anti-Muslim.

The situation has intensified since Unsal's childhood. The surge of radical Islam coincided with German fears over high unemployment and the shrinking of the traditional welfare state. Germany's birthrate is the country's lowest since World War II, and it has one of the fastest-growing aging populations in the world. The nation knows it will eventually need new blood to fill jobs and support social programs, but it is increasingly suspicious of foreigners.

The hate that Islamic extremists have for the "Western way of life has opened Germans' eyes to the presence of Islam's followers among them," said a recent commentary on German radio. "Much of what they see is negative, whether it's a newspaper report about an honor killing in Berlin, schoolyards where more Turkish is spoken than German or the forced marriage of a young, head scarf-clad woman."

I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim plant, but in reality, does it matter? Might The United States suffer the same fate as Europe in the end?

The Islamic religion does not allow for Muslims to assimilate with respect to other cultures -- in fact it issues warnings against assimilation. Perhaps this is why Germans are worried for the future of their culture.

By adopting European social policies -- are we not making ourselves more susceptible to the same influx of Muslims?

After all, is it not the goal of every religion to create the largest group of believers possible?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Interesting things have come about. GM is now being led to bankruptcy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104467.html

The Obama administration is preparing to send General Motors into bankruptcy as early as the end of next week under a plan that would give the automaker tens of billions of dollars more in public financing as the company seeks to shrink and reemerge as a global competitor, sources familiar with the discussions said.

The government previously indicated that it planned to take at least 50 percent of the restructured company, and likely would take the right to name members to its board of directors, as it has at Chrysler, where the government will control four of nine seats.

The United Auto Workers retiree health fund is set to own as much as 39 percent of the restructured GM, in exchange for giving up its claim to at least $10 billion that the company owes it. Yesterday, the union announced that it reached an agreement with GM that will reduce the company's labor costs.

Interesting how the United Auto Workers retiree health fund is getting pushed to priority one. The many investment groups are being pushed aside. Even those who are secured debt holders. The United Auto Workers retiree health fund is NOT a secured debt holder.

The speed with which the Chrysler bankruptcy has proceeded has given the administration more confidence that the best path for GM may be a similar trip, where the claims of disgruntled creditors and dealers can be more easily resolved.

In the Chrysler proceedings, the court has yet to stand in the way of plans to create a new company led by Italian carmaker Fiat. Chrysler's existing assets would be sold to the new company and the new entity could be up and running as soon as next week.

That's because Chrysler is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez to waive the customary 10-day waiting period before the order approving the sale becomes effective. The hearing on the sale is scheduled for next Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Gonzalez has already granted a similar request to expedite proceedings. Time and again in court, Chrysler executives and attorneys have argued -- and the court has agreed -- that Chrysler's core assets are "wasting" and that an immediate sale must take place to preserve value.

The administration is taking steps to prepare. It is drafting the paperwork for a $4.7 billion loan to sustain Chrysler after it emerges from bankruptcy. On Wednesday, the automaker announced that C. Robert Kidder, former chairman of Borden Chemical and of Duracell International will become the company's new chairman. He will succeed Robert L. Nardelli.

There is a need to shove everything through as quickly as possible. If the government can shove the bankruptcy, and the purchase by Fiat through quickly enough, there will be no precedence for appropriate action on behalf of the debt holders. In other words, the only thing the debt holders will be able to do is sue Chrysler after the fact. Assuming that the debt holders win in court; all of Chrysler's assets will have already been distributed elsewhere, and they money would have to be paid out over a long period of time. This action must be done quickly. If the process is stalled too long UNITED STATES LAW might get in the way of the Obama administration's "restructuring".

Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he hopes to meet with White House officials today to discuss changing Chrysler's bankruptcy plan and GM's future. Conyers did not outline what he wanted, but a nine-person panel he assembled for a hearing yesterday offered a hint. Liberal consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a conservative Heritage Foundation analyst and minority auto dealers all criticized the automakers' restructuring.

Conyers and other committee members attacked the administration for abusing bankruptcy laws, unfairly eliminating dealerships and jeopardizing consumer safety.

"GM now stands for Government Motors," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). "While the UAW is cashing in, it's the dealers, creditors and American taxpayers who are being forced to cash out."

This exemplifies the government taking care of the United Auto Workers retiree health fund. The only problem is that the method is illegal. The United Auto Workers retiree health fund is NOT a secured debt holder of GM, or Chrysler. So why then is the United Auto Workers retiree health fund pay-out placed before the secured debt holders? After all UNITED STATES LAW states otherwise...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.