Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Inside The Insiders - A Meta-Game

For those of you that know me, you know I have played a MMO called EVE Online for the last nine years or so, though I have taken breaks.  That isn't what this post is about, but it is relevant nonetheless.  In EVE Online there is a sub-set of players that are almost purely social and use that part of the game to enrich themselves in in-game terms.

They are many times genial, friendly and seemingly open, but in reality a pack of glib sociopath assholes.  They are the meta-game players.  They climb a social ladder in an organization just high enough to get some form of privileged access so that they can through betrayal or subversion obtain more influence and power or get more money.  We all know someone like this in real life and that is what this article is about.

In reaction to this article I felt it necessary to point out that another way of describing insider trading, political intelligence gathering or any other sort of related activity is meta-gaming.  It covers a whole host of situations if you just frame it all as a game.  Stock picking is a game just as much as EVE Online is and is vastly more lucrative.  There is nothing honest about what goes on in Wall St.  company fundamentals have little to do with stock price.  Rather is is how people feel about the stock.  If you meet your earnings projections...that doesn't mean you did a good job, rather people feel you are adequate.  If you beat projections you are stellar and if you fail to meet them you are trashed and no one cares that you still made a profit.  You are being gamed.  If some person gains access to the information ahead of time and uses it to leverage one position or another or several at the same time ( a gambit ) they are not just hedging but finding a way to profit based on non-public information.

This is illegal in the United States.  Now WHO do you think has the most inside of insiders information?  Why Those who write the rules that everyone will have to follow.  That would be the United States Congress and the executive branch that enforces those laws...who also has input into how those laws are 'shaped'.  They seem distinctly pyramid shaped to me.

And all one has to do is look at what former congressmen are doing now.

Tom Daschle and Trent Lott

That is just one example.  Those two always appeared to be on opposite sides but in reality were simply conspiring against their respective constituents for their own enrichment.  One man, William Binney, described this process in the just the NSA alone as a feeding cycle between private and public where a department would get more funding so that a dept head could later leave government and get a job at the firm he had given contracts to.  And the cycle of always getting a bigger budget would perpetuate itself.  This happens across all sectors of the government and when it happens in purely private industries people usually end up going to jail because it is corruption, a violation of their oaths of office and might as well be a form of mafia.  But those in power act like it is just a part of doing business.  So if that conspiracy is true...just follow the money.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Darryl Issa is Sir Bedevere


When Congressman (R) Darryl Issa (CA) is dealing with the IRS scandal I can't help but imagine the conflict with Lois Lerner going something like the witch scene in Monty Python: Quest for the Holy Grail film.  This woman has smartly invoked her 5th amendment right to not answer the question on the grounds that she may, without any intention to, implicate or incriminate herself.

Of course this isn't an actual judicial proceeding but she has good reason.
Those reasons are:  President Obama meeting with liberal blogger Ezra Klein and one of the founders of talking points media.  It is clear that these men are surrogates for the administration since sending out conventional operatives (Dan Pfeiffer and Jay Carney) failed to move the football down the field politically speaking.

Of course the Republicans are none too interested in solving this problem either.  They are focusing on Lois Lerner (who exposed this entire thing) rather than the people actually responsible for the bad and possibly illegal conduct.  so while many of these indignant and righteous men point fingers and scold whoever is in front of them...they do nothing as lawmakers to solve the problem.

They could: defund the IRS tomorrow if they so wished.

They could: abolish the IRS and institute a new flat/fair tax scheme and/or national sales tax.

They could pass legislation creating a special council/investigator who has the powers to investigate and subpoena individuals, documents and whatever else is needed to create an actual case.  They could do this with Benghazi...defund the CIA/DIA/NRO/NSA until answers are gotten.  That is...if congress were serious about making things better.

They may get a special prosecutor for the IRS.  They won't defund it, they won't rewrite the tax code, they won't upset the balance that the status quo is.  The IRS is their weapon.  It is a blunt instrument to keep us all in line and to separate us from one another by our incomes.  Envy is a powerful weapon.  Lois Lerner is made of wood and she shall indeed float...that is until she drowns.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

You say what?

Today on CBS Face the Nation, noted liberal journolisto and show host Bob Schieffer spent a good amount of time grilling White House advisor (re: propaganda artist) Dan Pfeiffer.  Most of the time the interview was really going against Mr. Pfeiffer in terms of host attitude.  However the final exchange is notable.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But what I'm saying to you is-- to you is that was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don't know yet? Why didn't White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?
DAN PFEIFFER: Well, let-- let's start with Susan Rice. She went out-- Ambassador Rice went out that day, and represented the administration and spoke to what happened with the best information we had, that everyone in the administration had, was what she looked at. And that was the consensus of the intelligence community. What we do is we want to go out and speak to the problems as they happened. And what's important here is that when problems happen is that the President takes responsibility for them and tries to fix them. And that's what-- that's what we're talking about in Benghazi because you're right, that is an absolute tragedy what happened. And the question isn't who edited what talking points. That-- that's largely irrelevant. What is relevant is what are we going to do to make sure that never happens again which is why President is calling on Congress to pass legislation to beef up embassy security around the world and protect our diplomats who, by their very-- the definition of their jobs are existing environment of risks. 

It takes only until the second sentence to lie.  Susan Rice did not present the best information they had at that point, though she did represent the administration admirably.  She fell on that sword good and hard.  That was supposed to end it and shield the President.  Nothing she said was part of the consensus of the intelligence community.  So far Dan has lied at least twice baldly on air.  The President took zero responsibility as the blame game was played between agencies for the last six months...lie number three.  (don't pay attention to who edited the talking points)...Is this real or am I in Oz?

Then he tells the host to pay attention to the new legislation they want to pass...as if the law was the problem in the first place and not terrible decision making.  Oh and by the way he manages to point out that these ambassadors put themselves at risk...y'know its kinda his fault he died...he knew what he was signing up for and probably deserved it.

Now the interview ends likely as a matter of time constraint...but in a sort of odd way considering how contentious it was.  Mind you Bob Schieffer was apologizing the entire time for possibly seeming argumentative.  Well he SHOULD be confrontational.  But he was letting Dan know that he wanted to be on his side...but that he couldn't see a rationale for it...and he was asking for one to be given to him...something he can stomach.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to thank you for coming this morning. I know this is not an easy job. I mean, do you kind of feel like someone who drew the black bean here? You're the one that has to go out and try to explain?
DAN PFEIFFER: Oh, no. It's-- it's a privilege to be here with you, Bob.
So all is well that ends well eh?
Bob asked hard questions, but fails to call the guest on his absolute lies, his gas-lighting psychological warfare on the audience.  He admits that Rice's talking points were not accurate...but then says it was the best information they had.  Spinning 180 within a matter of seconds must be his specialty.  Pretty amazing that he's considered a credible person.


Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Case Against The IRS

The IRS was created in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson as the enforcement wing of the US Treasury Department in order to facilitate the Income Tax legislation that was passed following the ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Part of the PR campaign that went with the passage of the 16th amendment was that it would never target the average citizen and was only to be applicable to the wealthiest among us.  The top rate in 1913 was 7% (those earning half a million dollars or more).  Later, rates would rise dramatically up to 67% by 1917 and have fluctuated wildly ever since.  However, regardless of the rates applied the Us Government has rarely ever actually captured revenue exceeding 18% of GDP.  In fact, according to the World Bank, The US government only captured 10% of GDP on average in the last few years.  That is despite all tax rates being quite a bit higher than 10% currently.

The current scandal involving the targeting of individuals and groups based on political ideology is not new and has gone on since the IRS was founded.  FDR was famous for using it as a weapon against political adversaries including those who formerly had supported him like Father Coughlin ( a raging catholic liberal ). Is it illegal?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  The IRS targeting Al Capone is what put him away and many criminals get ensnared by the vigilance of the agents at the IRS.  Of course this mkes me think about renaming them TED (Tax Enforcement Directorate).  The name has a certain authoritarian ring to it and at least more accurately describes what the organization is designed to do.

If the what the IRS did was in-fact illegal, then not only should agents and leadership lose their jobs and go to jail (as you or I would for say...assault, tortious interference, perhaps use anti-stalking laws or other statutes to put them away).

However the real scandal so far is that no one is seeing the obvious solution to the problem.  if the IRS is being used as a weapon and no political head of state can be trusted to run it (here's looking at you all Presidents since and including Wilson).  Then we have to take that weapon away.  That is abolish the IRS.  Start a new subdivision of the Dept. of the Treasury and call it whatever you want...but not IRS.  Throw out the US tax code in its entirety where it would apply to individuals (businesses are a different issue and far more complicated).

Repeal the 16th amendment on the grounds that it is too broad and open for abuse.  Amend the constitution to allow for a flat (not progressive) income tax rate to be set by the US House by a simple majority (51%) and only allow the senate to confirm or reject said rate without changing the rate itself as all of this must originate in the House.

As a result of the new flat tax, there would be no deductions, allowances, or loopholes.  There would also be no requirement to report income via a filing mechanism.  Legislation can be passed requiring the employer to electronically withhold the amount and it be transmitted via EFT (electronic funds transfer) to the US Treasury upon each pay period.  In your check you would see only that tax (Social Security/medicare/medicaid would be taken out before taxes in my scheme to reduce the tax hit).

The amount of time and money saved would be staggering.  And the best part is that there would be no ability to socially engineer society with taxes, to use them punitively or as a form of information gathering by political entities on their enemies.

When it comes to businesses one would have to allow for them to deduct all of their expenses against revenue and only tax profit.  All auditing assets would be focused on the business community rather than on families and individuals.  Business rates would also be flat whether a business is a C Corp, S Corp, Pass-Through Entity (sole proprietorship/DBA/Partnership/LLC/LLP etc.).  It would be a separately set rate from the individual income tax, but done through the same electronic system wherein at a given timer period the taxes would be paid based upon receipts.  Most businesses file quarterly reports and that would seem a prudent method.

Of course these measures would also eliminate the distinction of the capital gains tax...which would be folded under the individual income tax...which means that the rate would likely rise by 2-5% from its current level of 15%.  Tax exempt trusts would only be considered tax exempt for the current generation, that is with the current generation's passing away it would be taxed going further.  So let us take the Kennedy's as an example (could just as easily use the Bush's), They have a tax free trust that allows them to live off the interest only like with municipal bonds or treasury certificates.  When the eldest member of the family passes away, the next eldest who would receive the monies for the family would not receive it in a tax free manner, but rather pay an income tax like everyone else.

The time for making distinctions between citizens has come and gone.  We must stand united against being divided by those who seek power.  This is a tough complicated issue and it requires hard critical thinking by the US Congress because it is up to them to fund the operations of the US Government.  So they must come up with a rate that is neither too high nor too low and also delivers to them the revenue necessary to adequately fund the governments constitutional activities.

That may mean however that the government's raw size for the second time in our entire history would decrease..and that means a lot of federal employees out of work.  Many of them military.  So Congress should see it as its duty to set aside funding for job training/retraining and even job placement centers for these people as we transition.  It should be seen as our duty to do this for the military especially.  The Federal government should not be seen as a jobs program writ large but as a mechanism for governance and so much of what is done falls outside of that or is well overspent.  Simply examine all of the recent government loans to "green" industries that have failed, or the past frauds of the military credit cards, the continuing fraud in medicare/caid/SSI/Disability and the coming fraud that will consume the Affordable Care Act...written largely by the insurance companies themselves (yes that is why your premiums are rising massively).

Our representatives have ceased to believe in the implied fiduciary duty they have to the tax payers and constituents in the districts that gave them the job.  There is no sense of honor left except among a few and even those few do not have enough bravery to push for an audacious change like this.  This post barely scrapes what would have to be addressed, never mind the political interests from all sides that like having their own niche carved out.  No more weaponization of taxation.