you mean there are LOOPHOLES in tax laws?
utility companies collect for taxes they never pay.
companies paying little or no tax. hey, what a surprise.
hot tempered
dear valued customers,
thank you so much for your years of patronage. unfortunately, this blog is now closed. we have enjoyed serving you! yours, the managementwe exist
friendly places
- end of the line
- what do you want?
- the bright aisles of c-town
- you've got to hide your love away
- nothing rhymes with orange
- food disc sox brooklyn
- influx
- in the pearl of africa>
- geek tome
interesting places
- arts & letters daily
- drudge report
- eric umansky
- overheard in new york
- pitchfork
- savage love
- slate
- the morning news
- this modern world
- urban dictionary
- wikipedia
- wil wheaton in exile
previous posts
- bizarre
- The writer is Secretary of State.
- not encouraging
- office spaces
- in a nutshell, don't move to south dakota.
- so that's what librarians do.
- an imam grows in brooklyn
- interesting legal gymnastics
- gaaagh!!!
- why i love (LOVE) dan savage
3.15.2006
companies paying little or no tax. hey, what a surprise.
4 Comments:
Gaah, special interests!! Die! In case you miss it, exceptions have weakened the new pensions protection bill to the point that it is actually a pensions un-protection bill.
Why do we even allow campaign contributions?? As far as I can tell, they're essentially bribery. How about banning candidates from spending money on their campaigns, and instead requiring news sources to provide equal advertising spots free of charge? And banning elected officials from introducing or voting on legislation which disproportionally helps their constituents?
Or maybe just a benevolent dictatorship? Don't worry, I'd be in charge.
on campaign finance reform: here
on benevolent dictatorships: here
why in god's name would you want elected officials BARRED from introducing or voting on legislation that helps their constituents? that's their job! that's why they're elected! maybe instead of "constituents," which would refer to, say, the people in a congressional representative's district, you mean "donors," which would mean tobacco companies, the christian right, big pharma, etc. but even that would be impossible to enforce, and you know it.
remind me never to vote for you for president. i like democracy, even in forms perverted almost to unrecognizability.
Despite rants to the contrary, of course I'm in favor of democracy. The bad that any given dictator can do clearly outweighs the possibility of good she could do.
My problem, if I can remember back to freshman year and American Politics, has to do with the elected representative's understanding of her role -- as a steward or as a trustee. Ideally, I prefer that those in charge are considering the greater good rather than their particular constituents. That is to say, the congressional representative from Westchester shouldn't be solely concerned with finding tax breaks for people with large houses and high private school tuitions, and the representative from the south Bronx shouldn't be solely concerned with finding tax breaks for small locally owned businesses and unemployed and disenfranchised people (aside -- for a disturbing glance at the life of black men, check this out).
Now, it may be that the current system, free of corporate handouts, would manage to inspire proper behaviour by elected officials, but I still get annoyed when I read about earmarks for bridges to nowhere and such. Too much pandering, that's all.
And I still firmly believe that the world would be better off with me in charge (I would hope we would all think that). But much worse off with a system that allows for any one person to be in charge. Clear enough? hmmm.... me good. dictator bad. democracy good. pandering bad. greater good good. voila.
there are a couple of different issues in your argument that i think deserve separate treatment.
you could make an argument that, given the spread of the population and the fact that the house of representatives (which handles the money) is population-based, the interests of various constituents should even out. the representative for the south bronx should advocate for poor, underpriviledged people of color, just as the westchester dude should push for reforms that benefit his or her district. in theory, there will be enough south bronx-like districts, and associated representatives, that they can band together to make sure that their interests are served by the federal government, but they'll be balanced by other, opposing interests, so that no one group can dominate the political landscape. this gets complicated, however, by redistricting and gerrymandering. there are two sides to that issue, i guess: it can either amplify minority voices and ensure representation; or mute the votes of opponents' constituents. presently, the latter seems to have taken over (see the clever re-mapping of texas by tom delay et al), but the court may put a stop to it.
earmarks are a whole other can of worms, which i'd research and discuss at length, but there's dinner to be made. to be continued...
Post a Comment
<< Home