Thoughts of a Mad American Part 1


First in the series of thoughts of a mad American has to be:

Why haven’t you repealed Obamacare?

Hey Republican Congressmen and women. What’s the hold up, I mean besides your incompetence?

The ACA was signed into law 3/23/2010, after it was jammed down our throats without 1 single Republican Signature.  The ACA was a Kennedy wet-dream since the 80’s. If you didn’t realize Kennedy money funded Obama’s presidential campaign, then you weren’t paying attention. The  payback to Ole Ted for funding Obama was passing the ACA.

But after a Republican 7 year vow to repeal Obamacare, you have nothing to show for it except in-fighting. You can’t seem to agree on any of the parts of the bill because you have no bill.

Why can’t you get it together? Don’t you realize this single bill could destroy the United States financially? Those on the Obamacare dole are increasing daily as revealed by its growing favorable polling.

In a recent survey some 52% of Americans have a favorable view of Obamacare.

Of course they do, they are the 52% who have almost free – if not totally free healthcare through Obamacare. 85% of Obamacare enrollees receive subsidies to offset the cost of premiums as well as deductibles.

If you couple the 45% of Americans who don’t pay a dime in Federal Income Tax with those people who have pre-existing medical conditions, I’m surprised the percentage isn’t higher.

Even those persons who are on Obamacare cannot afford the out-of-pocket expense (deductible) of $3500 per year for individuals and $7400 per year per family without subsidies. So they bail out of Obamacare until they need medical care, then the just go down the next day and re-enroll, and as if by magic, they are covered.

The problem is the cost of needed government subsidies will reach $660 billion in taxpayer funds this year just to keep Obamacare afloat.

Here’s a little history review of premiums and deductibles since Obamacare became law.

The real question is why haven’t the Republicans repealed the ACA yet?

Why don’t you Republicans already have a replacement bill ready to go?

What the hell have you been doing for the last 7 years?

Maybe you could buy a “Making a plan for Dummies” book and read it in 7 years. 

You have control of the House, the Senate, and a President who is ready, even anxious, to repeal this failure before it implodes and everyone is left without coverage.

Trump was right, when he said it was time to “drain the swamp!” Maybe the ACA has not been repealed because the current Republicans are members of the swamp. Maybe they enjoy government control of 1/6th of the economy the ACA gives the swamp, the political favors it affords, the money to be had, or the votes to be gained.

Either that or they are gutless incompetents!

Why should they care – not one of them is on Obamacare – their healthcare coverage is the best available yet costs them $0.

Since you Republicans have no replacement plan after 7 years, at the very least, repeal Obamacare! You don’t need a plan for that.

Before you say you can’t – yes you can. The ACA was given the green –light by the Supreme Court based on the premise it was a tax.

Taxes can easily be repealed by a simple majority in both houses.

You think killing Obamacare is a heartless approach? No it’s not. What is heartless is  forcing working families to endure  premiums that have doubled in 8 years, to pay for someone else’s lack of health and coverage.

Why should I be forced to pay for maternity coverage when my wife and will never use it?

Why should I be forced to fund other people sex lives in the form of birth control pills, prophylactics, and abortions?

Why should I be forced to pay for healthcare of others who don’t give a damn about their own health?

Private and government safety-nets for healthcare can both exist at the same time. They did in the past.

The claim that everybody pays under Obamacare is just another lie.

There are other simpler ways of funding government sponsored healthcare where everyone truly does pay, but it seems the swamp members don’t want any part of simple or what’s best for working Americans, just what’s best for their remaining in office.

Buying votes with government giveaways.

Dear Republican swamp members repeal Obamacare!

Don’t you understand why Trump was elected over a field of career Republican politicians? Working class Americans were tired of your continual failures and excuses.

No more excuses! Repeal it or be replaced in the next election. Replaced by anyone who is in favor of calling for a Convention of States to forcefully drain the swamp.




Kudo’s to Sam’s Club


Thank you Sam’s Club

Several months back, I wrote a scathing blog about Sam’s club destruction of the self-check out line.

Upon recent visits I was pleasantly surprised to see; Sam’s Club has changed their pointless and redundant policies regarding self-checkout.

Gone is the requirement to move your 10 items from one shopping cart to another just in case you are unable to count to 10.

Gone is the self-checkout assigned cashier who checked your 10 items or less in case you couldn’t count, only to repeat the same inspection by yet another person when you reached the exit.

Now things are as they should be. Self-checkout is working, without help, without interference, without policies designed to annoy instead of helping.

Scan your 10 items or less, pay with your credit card, make your way to the exit. Sweet!

Did my article about my dissatisfaction with the Sam’s Club self-checkout policies have any effect on   their decision to change their policy for the better?

No way of knowing, but seeing the desired change in policy is satisfaction enough.

Being a fair person, I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so; as much as I blasted the previous Sam’s Club policy, I now commend them on the recent changes,  and a win is a win. I’m happy.

Now if I could only make fellow customers understand 10 items or less means 10 items or less.

Recent Protests and the Hypocrisy of the Left


Those of us old enough to recall the protests, and protests turned riots of the late 60’s recognize some similarities between then and now, and some concerning differences.

Truth is, most of these protesters don’t understand or don’t even know what they are protesting, blindly rallying behind causes they fail to realize most of today’s protests are based on lies, and started by liars, just like the “Free Speech” movement which began at Berkeley in the 60’s by one Mario Savio.

Mario Savio, the political activist, who became famous for his attack on the way Universities were operated. Savio thought universities had no right to curriculums, and students should be allowed to do, or study whatever they wanted to, simply because they were students.

Savio, obviously, an intelligent man, maybe winding up at Berkley probably about the time he realized his bouncing from campus to campus failed to give purpose to his life. Mario Savio gathered a number of shallow, disillusioned, like-minded followers and with a little help from television, the Free Speech movement was born.

Savio was a fake, and his cause was based on a lie. The famed sit-ins, known as the “Free Speech” movement had little, if anything to do with free speech. At its core, the free speech movement was little more than an excuse used by its participants for refusing to take responsibility for their own lives.

The movement went from sit-ins, to protests, and finally climaxed with the deaths of 4 protesters on the Kent State campus.

Just like Black Lives Matter, founded by a liar in one Shaun King, a white guy masquerading as a black man, and the entire movement is predicated on the lie of ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot,’ fostered and publicized by the progressive news media.

The lie has been told so often, and so many times, people think it’s the truth. Todays protests that have nothing to do with truth, they are just anger based on lies, expressed in catch phrases uttered by unhappy and untaught people, who cannot accept the truth.

The Women’s march is another example of a protest based on a false premise.

A group of women dressed up in vagina costumes claiming they are being denied freedom of choice. Are they? What choice are they being denied?

They say they want the government out of their vaginas, but they continue to invite them in. What they really want, and won’t publicly admit, is for the government to pay for their abortions and their birth control claiming it’s healthcare.

Birth control is not healthcare, and if you want the government out of your vagina, then pay for your own birth control and your own abortion.  Free birth control products can be obtained at any county health clinic for those who can’t afford them, just as they were before the Affordable Care Act.

If you are too stupid or too lazy to use birth control, what right do you have to demand the government, i.e. the taxpayer, to pay for your abortion?

The lie of the women’s march is exposed; It’s not about women’s rights, it’s about subsidizing their sex life.

The free speech movement can be traced to a disgruntled student, fueled by the media, who’s growth was attributed to gutless compromising by the leadership at Berkley.

Today’s protests are being instigated by politicians, public calls from United States Congressmen and Senators to “go and protest,” and the growth of these protests is fueled directly by a biased media.

What ever happened to ‘call you Senator’ or ‘write your congressman?

What an utter disgrace to civil democracy.

But as all things evolve so these protests have evolved, and as they continue to evolve, they become more radical, more unruly, more lawless, and are putting some very costly future results in motion.

These protests have evolved into mobs having shed any semblance of decency, while taking perversion to a whole new level. So even calling for the murder of law enforcement personnel, which is nothing short of anarchy.

The most dangerous and disturbing difference in today’s protests verses the 60’s and 70’s is the active participation of elected officials.

The hypocrisy of the ‘tolerant’ left is on display in all its deviant glory, illustrating a stark contrast between the public statements of past political leaders “we are a nation of laws,” and today’s “go and protest.”

Elected officials have chosen an ignorant and dangerous thing to do – invoking mob rule. They have opened Pandora’s box unleashing a spirit of blind hatred which will culminate in people dying because of it.

Chuck Schumer has become the Mario Savio of 2017, along with his socialist side-kick Bernie Sanders. They instigated protests against the repeal of Obamacare, by feeding lies to a mob.

Schumer, in his joint statement, calling for rallies and protests, we find:

“The Republican Party’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act is in chaos,” Schumer and Sanders said in the letter. “The American people increasingly understand that throwing 20 million people off health insurance, privatizing Medicare, raising prescription drug costs for seniors and doing away with life-and-death patient protection provisions is not acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to improve the ACA, not destroy it,”

Only thing is not one thing in this statement is true! Not one!

Two elected officials, instead of legislation and working with other members of Congress to reach a solution, have chosen to call for protests.

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

Based on their actions, Schumer and Sander’s could and  should be charged with riot incitement, and if convicted, removed from office. Before claiming they are protected under “free speech” as their predecessor Mario Savio claimed, you may be mistaken.

Consider a couple of quotes from the ACLU regarding free speech:

“Is all speech protected?

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it’s unpopular. You may criticize the President, the Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn’t extend to libel, slander, obscenity, “true threats,” or speech that incites imminent violence or law-breaking.

Can I talk about government overthrow or taking over the streets?

he government can’t stop you from talking generally about ideas or future events. But it may ban speech that’s “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Sanders’ and Schumer’s part in provoking protests, turning into riots should be under investigation. Instead of being leaders, and handling things in a civilized manor, on the floor of the Senate, they are encouraging mob rule. Invoking lawlessness, which will evolve into more lawlessness until deadly force is required.

Schumer in his eagerness to ‘open Pandora’s box;‘ got a taste of the consequences of his actions:

The protesters he provoked have turned on him;

When people start dying in these ‘protests,’ Sanders and Schumer will own a share in the responsibility – this is on them. There is culpability for any damage or death as a result of these protests.

It is clear, Progressives care nothing at all about everyday, hardworking middle-class Americans, who’s lives have been disrupted because other radicals wanted to join in the fun of anarchy.

The same Progressives, who for the past eight years spoke of crossing the isle –  working together – when they were in charge, have replaced those phrases with go and protest.

This is the hypocrisy of the left.




Guccifer 2.0: More hacked DNC documents revealed at cyber conference — RT America

Another round of hacked Democratic National Committee documents have been released. Provided by an anonymous representative of a hacker, Guccifer, the 500 megabytes detail the DNC’s information technology infrastructure and internal reports on donors.

Source: Guccifer 2.0: More hacked DNC documents revealed at cyber conference — RT America

The Farce of the DNC Hack

Information Security
Information Security

Recently I wrote an article on Hillary’s email blunder, highlighting the folly of her defense of her miss-management of her email accounts, personal and business, exposing those accounts to potential hacks. I would like to talk about email folly again; this time involving the “hack” of the DNC (Democratic National Convention).

Yes, and once again the hack of the DNC was gained through a poorly secured email account. The comical part of the DNC hack was not the hack itself, for I’m not a fan of any illegal hack, but the quick-to-blame-the-Russians for the hack.

Why would the “Russians” hack the DNC? What would be the point? If you listened to Liberal media outlets like CNN & MSNBC they would like you to think it’s because the Russians want Trump to win the election.

That’s funny, because I’m sure the Russians would prefer for Hillary to win rather than Trump. With Trump winning the presidency Putin would be forced to deal with a person who says what he means and does what he says, whereas with Hillary they know exactly what they are getting; 4 more years of another weak president they can push around.

The Hillary supporters would have you believe Putin is scarred of Hillary, what with the toy ‘reset button’ she reset buttonpresented to Putin while Secretary of State. Sadly her and ‘reset button’ turned out to be a green light to Russia extending their influence in the Middle East and Central Ukraine.

Back to the point: the claim the Russians hacked the DNC was a farce, and they knew it. Here’s why.

Without venturing to far back in history, let’s just do a 60 second recap of hacking, sticking to computer hacking, not its predecessor phreaking. Going back to the 80’s, anyone remember the movie Wargames?

The story is about a teen while trying to access a video game company to play the games they are about to release, but winds up hacking into a U.S. nuclear missile defense system almost causing WWIII.

Wargames the movie, a hacker cult classic, had a thread of truth running through it, as it gives an insight into types of hackers.

Hackers can be divided into a few basic groups:

  1. Hackers wanting to access information that is private, playing online games for free and such, accessing personal info for no other reason than personal entertainment by embarrassing the hackee. This type of hack could be mischief, like hacking into company data bases just to prove they could.
  2. Then there are those having a more malicious intent, creating viruses, worms, and other forms of malware, that infects personal pc’s turning them into bots, spewing the virus to other machines via email contact lists, or infected links, turning unsuspecting pc’s into remote slaves, capturing key strokes and accessing built in cameras.
  3. Hackers who are in it for the money. Identity theft, ransomware (where your files are encrypted and you can get the unlock key if you pay the hacker for it), or hacks of banks involving large sums of money.
  4. Then there is espionage. Hacks involving governments spying on each other. This is the most serious type of hacking. This type of hacking has National security implications, even matters of life and death.

If we consider the groups we’ve just mentioned, which on do you think is the most likely? We can safely rule out group 4, for there are no National Security interests in the DNC database (of there shouldn’t be). So the Russian government wouldn’t risk exposure on this type of hack.

With every hack there are footprints, clues as to the perpetrator, all governments are aware of this, so, the reward must be worth the risk.

That leaves 3 possible groups. With the absence of any reports of monetary theft, group 3 could be eliminated. That leaves 2 groups; groups 1 and 2. Could the supposed DNC cause publicity problems? Yes. Could these problems become serious? Yes, especially with the presidential election looming.

As it turned out a hacker going by the name Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC email account and turned the documents over to Wikileaks

It also turns out the hacked documents from the DNC were extremely embarrassing. Embarrassing enough to causewikileaks-and-dnc Debbie Wasserman Schultz to change jobs from DNC chair to Hillary Campaign manager.

Accusing the Russian Government of the hack was a farce. While Liberals may have believed it, Putin is no doubt still laughing, as well as everyone in the I.T. community.

Stop it with the 800,000 a month job losses already

Real close to the top of my list of pet-peeves is half-truths. People repeat half-truths time and time again to make a point, and most of the time that point is fiction. I understand why they do it – to bend the truth to make it fit their narrative, but they are none-the-less half-truths. I guess they think if thee say it enough times, it will magically become the truth, making half-truths dangerous.

One I’m sick of hearing, which I heard Bernie Sanders use in the last Democratic debate, is the half-truth about job losses in 2009.

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over?’ I’ve heard it far too many times over the last 7 years.

The Progressives love to use that line. It seems Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, love to use it too.  Generally they use it to expound another myth, how Obama saved us from another depression and it was all Bush’s fault. Well the myth of ‘how Obama saved us from another depression,’ is for another time. Let’s just stick with the first lie.

The trick is in how you say it: if you say “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” and leave it there, it sounds really bad – which it what it was intended to do. It makes you believe we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, every month, for a long period of time, doesn’t it? The truth is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was only one month where the job loses reached the 800k mark during 2009. That was March of 2009.

One month!

Loosing 800,000 jobs in one month doesn’t sound as bad as 800,000 a month, does it?

Let’s say it this way using the same 800k figure: “we lost 800,000 jobs in March of 2009,” which was the low point of the recession. Just doesn’t carry the same drama saying it like that.

The housing bubble burst and the recession took its toll in late 2008 and early 2009. There were job losses in every month of that year, but not 800k every month. The Progressive leadership doesn’t like to confess their efforts to ‘fix’ the economy was a blend of charging $Trillions to the National Debt, removing millions from the counted unemployed workforce, and everyone else taking a pay cut. All they want you to believe is ‘things were awful but we fixed them.’ Does your financial situation feel like the Progressives ‘fixed’ anything?

Politicians are very good at manipulating facts, bending the truth, all to support their narrative, but it’s time we force those same politicians to expound the truth, the whole truth, not just what supports their ideology or worse, their campaign.

Half-truths are dangerous, because they are lies. Half-truths are half-lies, and half lies can never be truth. It is sometimes difficult to separate the two, and it is exactly what politicians are hoping you won’t take the time to do. They would rather have you accept the truth as they define it.

Con men for generations have made living espousing half-truths. They wouldn’t be able to deceive people by telling the truth about their intentions, nor would they be able to con them if everything they said was an obvious lie. They skillfully blend the truth with lies until it is difficult to tell the difference. Then they keep telling you the same half-truth until you think it’s all true. By then, it’s too late for the mark.

So Bernie Sanders and everyone else who likes to parrot the line; stop it with the “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office” nonsense. It’s old, it’s a lie, and it’s tiring. Here’s a thought – tell the whole truth for a change.



The Myth of Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare is a catch-phrase you are likely to hear tossed into discussions involving welfare in general. The catch phrase is used by the left to defend Social Welfare programs they support, as if social welfare was some kind of moral high-ground and corporate welfare was some kind of dastardly activity. There are numerous articles and graphs describing the evils of Corporate Welfare, but most are not totally factual. If you were to ask the average tax-paying citizen what Corporate Welfare was, their answer would most likely be a vague reference to overpaid CEO’s riding around in their corporate jets, receiving tax breaks they don’t deserve. You mean like Social Welfare, where the recipients receive something they didn’t earn?

What is corporate welfare?

Once you cut through the noise, corporate welfare, as it’s called, can be broken down into two categories: One, tax write-off’s (what you and I would refer to as deductions, or income exclusions), and two, subsidies.

When you do your personal tax return at the end of the year there are certain things that you can claim as deductions. Every deduction has a dollar value, and that dollar value is referred to as adjustments to income. In other words the dollar value of that adjustment is removed from your total taxable income. Children, or dependents are adjustments to income, as well as:

Health care costs, state and local income taxes, Interest paid on a home mortgage, cash contributions to charities and churches, even gambling losses, just to name a few.

Most Americans claim the standard deduction, which is an IRS pre-determined amount covering most of the deductions you would otherwise itemize (list individually). The standard deduction is $6300 for individuals. The amount of income which is taxable or non-taxable is based on the IRS tax code.

Corporations can claim similar deductions as adjustments to their taxable income. In the business world taxable income is referred to as profits. Now here is where Progressives take issue with tax code (legal deductions to deductions) and decry Corporate Welfare; they are unhappy with the deductions allowed in the corporate tax code. Some rightfully so. They like to highlight rare instances where corporate jets were claimed as deductions and so on.

On the flip-side: If a couple decides to have a child, that child is considered an exemption having a dollar value of $1050. So if you or I decide we don’t want to have a child we have to pay more income tax than those who do have a child. The exemption is quite a bit higher for low income families who can claim up to $3250, based solely on the fact they earn less money. Looking at this, it be fair to say if you have a middle class income and don’t have children you have to pay more in taxes than those who have a lower income and a house full of children. Is that fair?

The origin of the term “Corporate Welfare” is traceable to 1990-1995. For most of those years Democrats (Progressives) controlled the Senate and/or the Whitehouse. Which means they could have easily modified the tax code, limiting or eliminating those corporate deductions. But they didn’t. They cried foul, but were themselves guilty of supporting corporate deductions.

Kind ‘a like political double-speak wouldn’t you say? Crying about corporate welfare and refusing to do anything about it.

Now, on to another form of Corporate Welfare, subsidies.

What is a subsidy?

There are two definitions, so let’s consider both.

First; “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

Where do subsidies come from? The government! Yet all of the Progressive banter would have you believe it is a creation of those evil corporations. Corporations take advantage of the tax code available – don’t you do the same on a personal level?

The point is; subsidies keep the price of a product or service low enough to be affordable to the general public. Who do products and services benefit? The public of course. You and I are consumers, rich or poor, no matter where our income comes from, we all buy products and employ services.

When did subsidies begin? The first U.S. subsidies were Farm Subsidies. They were offered briefly in the late 1800’s and were quickly withdrawn on a constitutional basis, but re-appeared and took permanent root in the 1930’s under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt. Since then government subsidies have only increased in number and cost.

We can argue about the worth of various subsidies all day long, but subsidies are subsidies no matter if they are corporate or individual.

Let’s consider this:

A gallon of milk today retails for $3.32 (national average). According to the govt. the production cost of a gallon of milk in 2015 was $3.21 and the retail value was $3.11.

If you wanted to buy raw milk at cost, you would need to provide your own jugs, drive to the nearest dairy, and find a dairy farmer willing to sell you a gallon of milk at cost ($3.21 a gallon). Would you be willing to do that? No, you would rather go to the local grocery store and pick up that gallon of milk for $3.32.

According to government information, in 2015 dairy farmers lost an average of .11 cents a gallon on what they produced. Just for the record dairy farmers lost about .57 cents a gallon in 2013. How long would you run a fairy farm if you lost money every year without someone making up the difference? Now add in pasteurization, packaging, transportation, storing, and retailing the true cost of that gallon of milk is now about $8.00 a gallon. Would you continue to buy the same amount of milk at $8.00 a gallon that you currently buy for $3.32? Probably not.

Let’s assume you are on a $50.00 a week food stamp allowance (social welfare), and the price of milk rose from $3.32 to $8.00 a gallon, will you continue to buy the same amount of milk? You couldn’t without cutting back on something else.

But you can still buy your gallon of milk for $3.32 a gallon because the government is subsidizing the dairy industry, or you personally – subsidies allow you to buy milk for $3.32 instead of $8.00. Corporate Welfare in action. So who benefits from this again?

Government welfare programs such as SNAP (food stamps) are managed under the same government agency as farm subsidies; the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Corporate and social welfare is managed by the same government agency. So the lines of social and corporate welfare become intertwined and at times indistinguishable.

We can dissect any industry and wind up at the same conclusion- corporate and social welfare working hand-in-hand.

The favorite evil industry target seems to be oil companies, which brings us to the second definition of subsidies; “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.” Would you admit oil companies are advantageous to the public? Absolutely; virtually every technological advance made in the last 100 years is connected, in some way, to the oil industry.  Plastics, medicine, medical care, fertilizers, insecticides, cars, computers, cell phones and so on, none of which would exist with the oil industry.

You see, the oil industry is absolutely advantageous to the public, and absolutely necessary to our way of life

The Oil industry is a popular target because of the shear dollars involved, $multi-million companies garnering millions in subsidies.

Let’s use the same dissection we used in the gallon of milk to see the subsidies involved: The cost of production of a gallon of oil in Nov of 2015 in the United States was about .86 cents a gallon (at barrel price of $36) according to the government.  The yield of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel of oil is 19 gallons, which means a gallon of gasoline cost $1.89 to produce.

The average retail price of gasoline in 2015 was $2.26 a gallon. So far we are at .37 cents a gallon above production cost before we add in transportation, storage, and retail cost of making gasoline available at the pump (which is about .16 cents per gallon). Now subtract the federal and state taxes (which average .47 cents a gallon), and we are selling gasoline for a $1.63 a gallon retail, which is selling gasoline at a loss of .26 cents a gallon. That loss is made up by government subsidies (or tax breaks, whichever you prefer).

While the oil industry enjoys large subsidies, it’s products are a huge source of tax revenue for the same government who issued subsidies for the production of the same product.

In 2013 gasoline sales generated over $30 Billion in tax revenue (which was supposed to fund infrastructure repairs).

Consider this: if the price of gasoline goes up, people purchase less, decreasing the federal revenue, and if the price goes down, people buy more and federal revenue goes up.

Once heralded as the green energy answer to fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be an over-priced flop; costing taxpayers twice as much as fossil fuels in tax-credits (subsidies), and because it is made from corn, which is subsidized as well, ethanol companies receive two subsidies.

The green energy crowd was gut-punched when it discovered ethanol damages the atmosphere more than fossil fuel do.  Not to mention, it is far less efficient than gasoline.

In the end, everyone screams about the profits made by oil companies, the years when things go right, but you never hear anything from the same crowd when those same companies break even or lose money in a given year. A gallon of gasoline is like a gallon of milk, the subsidies, or tax breaks issued by the government, benefit you and I the consumer as well as the oil companies.

Are corporations guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting the social welfare system in this country? Absolutely!

So who’s fault is it the tax code allows ridiculous corporate deductions? The corporations? Or the politicians? The truth is, politicians make mucho-dinaro from the tax codes as is.

Maybe we should focus on political welfare – you know the subsidies those politicians receive.

Originally corporate subsidies were intended to protect the public from extreme price fluctuation and shortages in basic food stuffs; i.e. milk being $1.00 one year and $10.00 the next, and there being no milk at all the next, much like social subsidies were intended to be a temporary helping hand for those in need, not a full time occupation.

There is little distinction between social and corporate welfare. Call it what you will; tax breaks, deductions, subsidies, earned income credit, or school lunch programs, it’s either all or none. One cannot exist without the other. Not without serious re-thinking and an adjustment period which would cause untold social upheaval for half a decade.

But, alas, maybe we should have heeded the warning of President Calvin Coolidge when he vetoed the McNary-Haugen bill, saying: “I do not believe, that upon serious consideration the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Government, shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the levying of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus.”

His reason for doing so, and an unheeded prophetic warning: “There is no reason why other industries— copper, coal, lumber, textiles, and others—in every occasional difficulty should not receive the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish bureaucracy on such a scale as to dominate not only the economic life but the moral, social, and political future of our people.”

Welfare is welfare; corporate or social. You cannot justify the one and defend the other since they come from the same government.