Why's everybody picking on poor Chaffetz?

In my usual fashion, I'm slow to getting around to the next blog post. But figured I needed to since there has been so much great conversation about our esteemed friend Jason Chaffetz.

Why is our freshman Congressman being picked on so much? Because he deserves it.

For a guy who criticized Chris Cannon and the Republican leadership so much to get into office, he sure isn't doing much to oppose the corruption and inaction of his party.

On March 27, the infamous cot-sleeper sent a letter stating his opposition to the President's plan for climate control. The "cap & trade tax" as it is being called would increase costs to utility companies, but what is debatable is how much, if at all, it would affect residential energy users. But Chaffetz was quick to distribute scare tactics to everyone. Simply because he is one of our nation's most partisan puppets.

I'm not going to get involved in the debate of the details of the budget proposal, but simply illustrate how flawed Congressman Chaffetz argument is. Let's keep this nice and simple.

According to his "research" (which is heavily assumptive and highly disputable) the increased energy costs for the state of Utah is $3.01 billion. Chaffetz simply takes this number, and divides it by the population to illustrate how much each person will be affected. To which he points out that it divides out to $1,115.47 per person, or, almost $290 per month, per family (again, simply estimating that a family is 3.01 people). 

Here's the obvious problem. Who uses power, and how much is used? Looking at only the population ignores that there are offices, stores, and other buildings that use power. So you must add every Walmart, shopping mall, restaurant, sports arena, etc. to the number that $3.01 billion is divided by. Now, do we really think that the average Utahn consumes the same amount of power as a Walmart Supercenter, or the Energy Solutions Arena? How about Trax, which consumes electricity to power their trains? All considered, a residential household's average power consumption is dwarfed by these businesses. 

Commercial and industrial buildings account for much more energy use than a household. So if we just thought about it for a second, we'd realize that the $290 per family would be considerably less, even if the estimates are correct. Then we'd also need to consider the larger mansions, apartment buildings, and other structures that would create a large variability in energy consumption.

So obviously, the figures that Chaffetz is proposing are nothing more than a fear tactic to promote his horribly partisan beliefs. When we ignore the facts is when we are mislead as a nation. Tell Congressman Chaffetz to do his job and represent us, not try to scare us into supporting partisan politics. 

Fireside conversation about economics, with a drunk conservative sympathizer

Sitting at the pub last night when a friend introduces a Twitter n00b to me. I honestly don't remember how an introduction turned political, but somehow it did. The young girl tells me that she likes what the Democrats do for us socially, but likes the Republican's economical policies much more. To which I had to reply that the only Republican economical policy is "Screw you all!"

She wanted to explain her argument to me, which I was happy to listen to, yet warned her that she can tell me why she feels that way only for me to prove everything she says is wrong. She had a look of surprise, but wanted to justify her position.

"Did you know that 1% of citizens pay 40% of all taxes? Do you really believe that is fair? As most of those people are small business owners who are struggling to survive right now."

She made this too easy on me. First, I asked her if she had any concept of what those top 1% make. She replied that her parents were in that number, clarifying that her parents were wealthy, she was not. So I asked her if her parents made more than $40,000 per day, why does she work, and further, why is she drinking Bud Light in a place like this. If her parents were in that top 1% they would make more than the average person's annual salary each day. Therefore, why would she work at all when her parents could hand her two days worth of pay and have her rolling in cash. 

Further, does she understand that the statement "pays 40% of the taxes" doesn't mean paying 40% taxes on their income. The real number is about 22% for these people. Let's do the math, and that means your parents make at least $10,000,000 annually, we're rounding down for simplicity. 22% would be 2,200,000 in taxes. Leaving them with only a measly $7,800,000 in their pocket, which is more than 150 times what the average American earns. (It's actually 177 based on these numbers, but I didn't break out the calculator right there).

So it takes 150 or more average Americans to pay the same amount of taxes that the top 1% do. Further, that is personal income tax you're talking about, which doesn't mean the total taxes collected in the country. So of course those who are extremely wealthy pay a greater share, the average person does not make anywhere near the amount of money so how could they contribute more? But the real point is this, you and your family do not benefit from Republican economics. Actually, you are worse off than you should be. You've been poisoned with lies to convince you to vote against your best interests by a power-hungry mob who despise the social good which you say you like. My only question to you now is, shouldn't it be time to talk to your parents about real economics and beg them to stop supporting and propagating this ridiculous mentality?

This is what is wrong with our nation today. Average people with modest lifestyles have been convinced to follow a system that hurts them. Sensationalism gets all the attention and people fall for it because very few of us are happy with our incomes and lifestyle. But the way to make things better is not by following the myths of tax breaks. Tax cuts can put maybe a thousand dollars in our pockets annually, when we are spending more than that each month in interest & insurance costs alone. So what would truly enhance your life? A measly tax cut, or health care reform that could save each of us $1000 per month?

Capitalism debunked

I remember hearing it repeatedly during business school, the purpose of the corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. This was the doctrine of our world. In every business decision we were to consider whether it increased shareholder wealth. Now the "King of Modern Management," Jack Welch, who is attributed to have started this belief has come out to deny the intelligence of that statement.

“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world,” he said. “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy . . . Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

So all this time companies have been doing business wrong? You would think having the focus on the wrong aspects would lead to a catastrophic event like... what we are currently experiencing. 

This does not mean that shareholder wealth is not important. What it means is that looking at the short-term financial manipulations to cover for the inadequacies of your plans to take care of your employees, who will satisfy your customers with your products is what a company is meant to do. When you succeed at that is when you will increase shareholder wealth through actual sustainable activity.

Write that down.