Itemized IRS Tax Receipts: Keeping Citizens Aware and Government Measurably Accoutnable

Several prominent bloggers have been debating the virtues of what the theoretical itemized IRS tax receipt would look like if issued to normal citizens. It's the least we should expect as active tax-paying participants in this semi-functional exercise in representative democracy. See above for an example. This theoretical receipt is a tad appalling when dissected. As a young taxpayer, this awakens my inner slasher. All I do is see numbers that need to be cut. Our forefathers partially went to war over taxes on commodities, one wonders when our inner common-sense will be enraged by the bloat and obtuseness suggested by such a document and incited to rightoeus action. It is clear that my generation and younger is being thoroughly sodomized by the entitlement happy folks of my parents and grand-parents generations. I'll be lucky to see a dented nickel when it comes time for me to collect any social security.

I want more transparency and accountability in government and part of me would thoroughly love to be informed to how my hard-earned money was allocated. However, given generations of behaving like ostriches, with our collective heads in the sand, seeing such a document and understanding how deep our governmental spending rot truly is, such a document may actually push to depress me to the point of apathetic disengagement. At this stage, does self-medicating to point of willful ignorance present a preferred outcome to civic engagement that is bound to disappoint? Just some food for thought.

The cascading impact of the crude spill in the gulf

The story about the BP sourced oil spill in Gulf keeps getting worse. The slick is now the size of Jamaica and will likely devastate the coast-lines the five gulf coasts states. Not only will be the economic and ecological impact be catastrophic for the folks in the region, but the werewolf thinks there will be very nasty macro-effects that will haunt the America psyche for a long-time to come. The two most sinister macro-legacies will be reinforcing the misbegotten notion in the minds of Americans that government intervention is increasingly required to handle everything. The current administration will most definitely use this to exploit that idea.

Additionally, America's energy policy will be screwed over as the over-reaction to this disaster will likely lead to massive reductions in the ability to exploit the abundance of domestic energy as irrational fears take over. This will increase America's dependence on overseas oil, screw over the domestic energy worker, hamper American owned energy interests, and further divert American capital away from strengthening our internal energy infrastructure. We will self-sodomize ourselves on account of the emotional scars this will cause.

Much like how Three Mile Island made American Luddites and retards  when it come to appreciating the beauty and benefit or nuclear, this gulf spill will open a Pandora's Box of contemptible retardation.

Lesser, but still severe effects of this spill will manifest themselves interestingly.

The anti-humanist environmental movement will get new life breathed into it. These people want us to have no kids, eat freeze dried air, attach sails to our cars, and live in homes fueled by love. They suck.  After a series a recent setbacks and the virtual debunking of global warming had rendered them impotent, it's unfortunate that they'll have a voice again.

There will be a spike in oyster, shrimp, and certain fish prices. The werewolf loves the fruits of the sea and has no money. The price increases will be felt. Not to mention the real tragedy of a regional American industry being virtually destroyed.

BP has really screwed the pooch. One wonders if they are competent and fit to operate. They lied, mislead and mis-managed this whole affair from the get go. $25 billion in shareholder equity has been wiped out. That's a mere glimpse of what we can expect when this is all done. Tens of billions more can reasonably expected to evaporate as the situation gets worse. This is all before the lawsuits, regulatory fine fines and consumer outrage kick in.  BP has invested millions heavily in making themselves the "nice energy company." However, it is clear that it was all sham. The werewolf loves the energy sector. He is pro-energy sector, pro corporate social responsibility and pro growth. BP has manged to blow the lid of these things through their vile display of incompetence.Compliance, proper risk management, foresight, and honesty are all part of the bargain of believing in the power of the private sector. BP doesn't erode all of that, however, they are dead to to the werewolf.

As mentioned earlier, the government, which has been asleep at the wheel, and Americans should learn to shun, will leverage this to further expand as the all consuming leviathan that dominates our lives.

The double standard of how the current administration is being given a pass is shocking, especially when one considers the mountains of unfair shit hurled at President Bush. (Granted Bush and his PR people should have fought back with more vigor).

This whole thing is tragic. The werewolf is convinced that the impact will be much more far-reaching than anyone currently realizes.

Mickey Kaus: A Democrat the werewolf can get behind

Investors Business Daily has an interesting little blog blurb about Mickey Kaus's nascent senate campaign in California. The fact that thoughtful and unorthodox Democrats actually exist is a good omen. Kaus fits that mold beautifully. He is certainly a liberal in several regards and on substantive issues. What makes him unique in the modern political sphere is a respect for fact based metrics, an inherent contrarian streak that questions blind political hackery, and a understanding that the world is governed by several changing dynamics that static political positions can not effectively manage. Here's an inspiring excerpt:

"You don’t have to be a wild-eyed libertarian to realize something is very wrong with that. But, as Kaus points out, “You can’t find a Democrat politician criticizing the teachers unions.” That silence is hurting the liberal cause. “Unions are what make affirmative government unpalatable,” he said."

The werewolf is no Democrat, and finds many elements of modern liberalism intellectually appalling and a righteous cause for severe indigestion. He thinks Barbara Boxer is an ignorant slut at best and a vile, bigoted and condescending brutish genderless left wing wacko who deserves to contract some putrid STD at worst. He despises her as much as one can. She is the worst creature that modern politics breeds.

Still, he thinks it is important for the long term health of the republic to erode strictly partisan assumptions and practices as a norm. Plus, how conservative would a GOP senator from California really be, and wouldn't greater value be added via an honest and renegade oriented Democrat in terms of getting that leeward party to question itself at times?  Also, the werewolf is unsure of how he feels about Carly Fiorina given her topsy-turvey tenure at H-P and finds Tom Campbell more appealing at prima fascia. That means his preferred candidate has a snow-balls chance in hell of making it through the general if he clears the primary. However, that is a fluid observation subject to change. Mickey Kaus offers a promise along those lines. In many ways, he can be the liberal version to the straight-shooting contrarianism of Republican senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. That seems like something this country could use at the moment. Thoughts?

Recall U.S. Interests In Auto Industry

Sometimes stating the obvious is tough and readily apparent evidence is thin. Over at Forbes, George Pieler and Jens Laurson take the aforementioned circumstances and author a solid article addressing the issue as it relates to the concerns over government ownership of large swaths of the US auto industry. They also speak well to Toyota's raft of problems independent of U.S. government's conflict of interest. Can a regulator who owns the competition truly be objective? Who gets screwed by this lack of objectivity?

"In a way, this is business as usual and reflected in the drop of Toyota's share prices. What is not business as usual is that Toyota's competitors include not just other car companies but also the U.S. government, due to its effective ownership of GM. Whether foul play is involved, it's a bad idea for government to run a car company and regulate all competing car companies at the same time. The conflict of interest is obvious, but the government--certainly not at La Hood's initiative--didn't recuse itself. Did he suggest that "Toyota thinks they know how to fix the problem" to cast doubt on its actual ability? What would otherwise be an innocuous statement arouses suspicions under such circumstances.

The charge of bias can't be proved or dismissed. The accusation of pro-GM mercantilism will always be raised when its competitors are targeted. Genuine protectionism in favor of GM and Chrysler (as well as Ford) would be very bad for American consumers and American autoworkers employed by Toyota. But even the credible appearance of it is bad enough. If the public has to second-guess every one of La Hood's pro-safety actions and pronouncements on the ground he may be tilting the table for GM, it's not only Toyota or U.S.-Japan relations that suffer. The credibility of U.S. policies on automotive safety will be harmed most, which means that for public safety reasons alone the U.S. should discharge its ownership positions in GM and Chrysler as soon as possible and let them swim free." 

There is another conflict of interest that the werewolf believes is getting short shrift. The relationship that unions have with domestic vs. foreign automakers. Although not universal, the vast majority of foreign automakers who have established manufacturing operations in the United States have located their plants in "right to work" states. The automakers include Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz and some of the states domiciling these operations include Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Despite the recent contraction in credit, lower sales volumes, and poor macro-economic conditions a spectrum of reports suggest that these plants are more efficient, breed happier workers, and have a generally less adversarial relationship with management.  Given that the current administration is beholden to the labor unions that contributed handsomely to their election coffers and that the unions hold profound contempt for the foreign operations of competitors being sourced domestically under non-union negotiated labor contracts, and that since the government owns the companies that employ large segments of union membership that there is an inherent conflict of interest at work? The answer seems painfully obvious to the werewolf, but then again he doesn't want to be accused of chasing mice in his mind. Still the implications of such decisions impact stakeholders from consumers, workers, lenders, suppliers, and tax-payers that it would behoove us all if more attention was paid to the issue.

British Bureaucratic Idiocy: Quantifying Bravery

Tim Ripley of The Time of London has a scathing piece "Quota rules rob troops of medals" on how out-of-control government bureaucracies become slaves to quantifying the unquantifiable to the detriment of the people they are attempting to serve. In essence, White Hall has decided that a quota must be in place to recognize bravery on the battlefield in the case of British troops deployed in the very active combat theater of Afghanistan. Bravery, or courage under fire, is like laughter or love, it is something that can't be quantified based off of a rigid quota system and capped for allocation. Sure, rigorous standards must be established to meet a threshold to be recognized for bravery, but the werewolf thinks of few things as sinister as valuing courage through a rigid quota system. That sends a very perverse signal throughout the ranks and it is likely very demoralizing.

It also got the werewolf thinking that if governments instinctively want to set quotas for courage and bravery, imagine how treacherous they are when it comes to allocating the scarce resources of a health care system. Another reason for the United States to avoid a nationalized health care system like herpes from a crack-house hooker. Once you get it, it sticks with you forever, and you never treat or value life with the same dignity.

Raise your Glass to Gov. McDonnell: Virginia is For (Liquor) Lovers!: The case to privatize booze sales.

Some things speak for themselves. Great move by Governor McDonnell.

The werewolf was in a Virginia ABC last fall and was shocked by how poor the wine and liquor selection were. Needless to say, the werewolf and his compatriots went back into DC to procure the much needed swill to get them through the evening.

That being said, $17K for Scotch! Talk about diminishing returns. Yowza.

Reason: Tobacco Truth Gets Smoked

This article from Reason magazine paints one of the most thorough and honest pictures of the alternative tobacco market landscape. It is a must read for anyone interested in how out-of-whack the government and public health officials are when it comes to understanding the war against smokers and peoples health. FYI, cigarettes can be very hazardous to your health!

Despite being a non-smoker, the article hit home for the werewolf on multiple levels. Let the werewolf declare it here, during the summer of 2008, the werewolf was officially a vassal in the tobacco castle. The werewolf spent his MBA summer internship working on alternative tobacco product marketing strategy and corporate social responsibility initiatives for one of America's largest tobacco companies. Being the misanthrope that he is, playing Nick Naylor lite for summer was a dream job. Anyhow, the article states all of the key take-aways from the werewolf's experience with both an eloquence and accuracy in its writing that the werewolf hopes to achieve someday. You'll be spared all of harm reduction, reduced risk mantra that became the werewolf's second inner dialog at one point in his life, as it is all spelled out in the article.

The werewolf has many amusing stories from his experience that he'll indirectly share at some point. (He'll have to be nuanced though, big tobacco NDA'd him out the wazoo) He will say that he learned just how vicious the folks in public health advocacy are and how their anti-smoking crusade is more like a jihad than anything else. One of the werewolf's responsibilities was performing corporate social social responsibility outreach, which involved communicating with hostile stakeholders (public health advocates). During a conversation with a senior apparatchik from a leading and well-known public health advocacy organization involving smokeless tobacco concepts, the werewolf was told to pound sand and that "we are more interested in driving you a**holes out of business than saving lives at this point." The hate filled rage, disregard for the organization's health charter, and blind questioning of yesterday's cause really shocked the werewolf and drained him of all respect for those who claim to be champions of health. When these guys win the war against big tobacco(and they will, sadly), I pity whomever they target next, because for them, it's about winning at any cost, not saving lives, nor helping people. Never forget that.

London prepares to "hoist with own petard."

There is irony in this Daily Telegraph article about a pending skirmish between London's boy-wonder Mayor, Boris Johnson, and Labour's Treasury Select Committee, a.k.a., the taxmen. As the financial downturn has crushed major western financial centers like New York, London, Hong Kong, Chicago, Geneva, and Zurich, governments have experienced sharp reductions in tax revenues as jobs vanished. It's the natural order of things. However, this clash between Johnson and the taxmen could have some interesting implications for the full recovery of London.

The taxmen want to target wealthy bankers, by imposing a windfall tax of 50% on bonuses in excess of £25,000(about $44,800). While this is estimated to impact between 9,000-10,000 bankers in London, the long-term impact could be devastating to London's financial service sector recovery. Dropping aside the odious elements of class warfare and populist exploitation that are partially fueling Labour's rationale, the werewolf is shocked that the British government is seriously picking a fight on this issue. This sends a clear signal to all financial service employers that the British government isn't serious about recovery and could potentially prolong London's downturn by compelling bankers to do business somewhere else. Recall, that London's primary business is financial services. (Could you imagine Hollywood taxing all actors an extra 50%) Is the deliberate hamstringing of your long term prospects worth a brief spike in revenue collection? For the werewolf, it boils down to the alignment of long-term versus short-term incentives. The self destructive desire to score short term points by destroying long term prospects, leaves him completely flummoxed. London is slaughtering the cow for a sirloin tonight, but is forgetting it will lose the cow's precious milk flow, and it'll be thirsty for a long time to come.

He feels that for too long, most decisions have been predicated on short-term considerations, including those decisions that laid the foundation for the current financial predicament. When leadership jobs vanish, they are hard, if not impossible to recreate. If there is a further exodus of London's bankers to New York, Hong Kong, Zurich, or wherever, a decent amount of capital will have been committed to locating personnel in those new locales, thus increasing costs for a potential return to London. A bad cycle will have been initiated. Wouldn't this be the time to make London as attractive as ever, to retain it's position as a pack leader in financial services? Because whoever makes it to the top of the mountain tomorrow, will fight to retain their perch.

Three cheers to Mayor Johnson for looking at the long-term and thinking about London's tomorrow, rather than trying to fight yesterday's class war. Here's to hoping that long-term thinking returns to the decision making process sometime soon. The werewolf doesn't want to be in exile forever.

The Business of Governmnent.

Politico has an interesting article about the American public's thoughts on what to do with the portfolio of assets currently controlled by the US Government and how to use these assets to address America's considerable debt.

There is an interesting contrast embedded in the article regarding perceptions on the government's ownership of feasible business enterprises versus the ownership of land. According to the Rasmussen polling data used for the article,"57 percent think the government should sell Amtrak to private investors as soon as possible,"while "Seventy-six percent say the government should sell its ownership of the auto companies to private investors as soon as possible," however, "Fifty percent are against any government land sale" to pay-off the debt. What gives?

It's no secret that the government can't run or value a business.

However, what drives this perception that the government is an intrinsically superior steward of the land? Or perhaps, is it that land isn't a suitable asset to sell to pay off the debt? Do we cling to some romantic notion of Teddy Roosevelt birthing the national parks in all their glory and those would be the parcels of land up for grabs? For every national park, there are thousands of acres of nothingness or defunct military bases that may have higher values elsewhere than just sitting idle.

As an advocate of smaller government across the board, the werewolf views most, but not all, federal/state assets as worthy of consideration for sale to pursue both a reduction of debt and better internal management practices. I am thrilled that the public tends to be skeptical of government run businesses, but, still wonder where the line of demarcation exists between business and land.