Getting Credit

The federal government is in a no win situation when it comes to providing federal aid. If it chose to forego giving Texas money to assist with the fires, it would be blamed for not supporting the State - as it was when it failed to quickly respond to the disaster after Katrina. If it does give money, Texans will refuse to give it credit and continue to believe, falsely, that they are self sufficient and don't need federal assistance. What the federal government needs to do is get a better PR group on it's side, so it gets credit for the things it assists with and people can start appreciating what their tax dollars are spent on. This might get people to start voting based upon the reality of where their benefits are coming from opposed to the false belief that they get nothing from their federal taxes.

For instance after the stimulus bill was passed, the government put signs up on highways which were being built due to federal money financing it. This gave the government credit for it's spending on a local level. Similarly, it needs to find a way to reinforce with Texans that they are not going it alone; rather federal employees have been on the ground since March ready to assist with the fires and have worked along side state and local employees to quell the fires. Yet, the elected representatives from that state seek to kill all federal aid.

Maybe if the voters start to realize what they will be without if their elected representatives were to prevail in their endeavors to kill all federal aid, then people will stop voting for people that want to take away the benefits they get.

Government Intervention

It certainly seems mean spirited, as no one wishes harm on other citizens, but since the Texas leaders, including Governor Perry, claim that government has no business being involved in our lives, maybe the US Government should refuse to provide federal assistance to Texas for the current wildfires. If they want to go it alone, then let them do just that. FEMA should not be responding to tragedies in states where the people do not want them to be. Such federal assistance can be reserved for places such as NY and VT, states that have not rejected federal government involvement. This is a matter of States Rights - it is the right of the state to reject federal assistance and so long as the state leaders are going to criticize US Government involvement, then they should not receive any.

Open Letter To President Obama On Tax Burdens

As the congressional committee meets to determine how to decrease the national debt, the White House needs to make the moral argument on why taxes need to be increased, especially on big business, the rich and super-rich - it is their obligation to repay the money spent on them. The debt that is being decreased is for the expenses that the US has already spent. The items money has been spent on include two recent wars, highways, safe airways via financing the FAA, financial bailouts, and other federal government obligations. Those who have benefited the most from these expenses are the corporations, the rich and the super-rich, and now they need to pay back their fair share of the debt that has been accrued.

No one benefits more from good roads than do employers. Workers need to go to work, products need to be transported from place to place, shipping harbors need to be dredged and made safe for passage, the airways need to be organized and safe for cargo transport. All of these measures allow business to be conducted. If the federal government ceased spending money on these things, then businesses - large and small - would cease to operate efficiently. The federal government has allowed businesses to work efficiently for many years by spending large amounts on updating roads and bridges, on maintaining the safety of shipping harbors, and on managing the nations airways. Accordingly there is no reason that businesses, the rich and super-rich who have all benefited from these projects should not be "burdened" with paying for the past payments on these projects.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will benefit corporations as well. Big oil companies are seeking to make profits from having access to the Iraqi oilfields, and now the Libyan oilfields. Exxon, the most profitable company in history, will surely benefit from the billions spent on the Iraq war. There is no reason that Exxon and it's shareholders should not, through increased taxes, help pay for the war. Further, as ships were attacked by Somali pirates, the companies shipping products through the straits looked to the US Navy to protect them - meanwhile many companies were avoiding taxes by flagging their ships in Liberia and Panama. The shipping companies should pay their share of the military protection they received - alternatively they could request naval protection from Liberia and Panama. The US military has been good for US business and those who have benefited the most from the military interventions should pay for theses expenses.

The benefits to big business as a result of the financial bailouts for the banks and automotive industry is well documented, and those who run these organizations should pay their share of taxes to offset the costs to the government.

Big Government benefits Big Business much more than people give it credit for, and it would behoove the White House to start making this argument in response to the GOP's false claims concerning taxes and business. Warren Buffet started the discussion in the recent New York Times Op-Ed piece. Now the White House needs to carry the conversation further to the obligation businesses, the rich and super-rich have to repay the government for the investment it has given to them over the past several decades, so they could do business, flourish and become the rich and super-rich.