I'mASuper.com

… cigarettes, in order to eliminate food taxes.

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705275669,00.html

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. wants to raise cigarette taxes by enough so the state can afford to finally eliminate state sales taxes on food purchases despite the troubled economy. 

The exact amount of the governor’s proposed increase has not yet been determined, his spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said, but he is expected to recommend raising the tax on a pack of cigarettes to around $3.

The current tax on each pack of cigarettes is $0.70.  The governor is apparently expected to raise the ciagarette tax 400%! That’s an enormous tax raise.

Now first, let me get this out of the way: I’m a politically conservative individual who doesn’t smoke, or drink. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever, in the entirety of my life had a cigarette in my mouth.

I’d like to say, I commend the governor’s desire to get rid of sales tax on food purchases.  In a trouble economy, that really does assist the residents of Utah, and can make a big difference on household budget.

that being said, the state needs the tax money. So, we’ve got to get it from somewhere. But consider this: Currently, the state of Utah is sharing this burden of tax to fill whatever monetary needs the state has. Huntsman proposes that we cut those contribution all the way down to only the people that smoke?

I know that smoking is a big health-no-no, and I realize that motivating people to quite is a great thing. But this goes way beyond that. I know you can argue that “well they don’t have to buy cigarettes!” but comeon’, really? Targeting a couple hundred thousand smokers with a multi-billion dollar budget that was previously filled by millions of people? That’s just not right.

While I want the food tax gone as much as the next guy, we shouldn’t unjustly target groups to fulfill those needs.

An oxymoron you say? Maybe. 

There are two types of generally favored forms of executive pay reform. Say on Pay, and a Mandatory Cap.

Say on Pay

Currently, there is only one piece of federal legislation currently being deliberated in the United States Congress that affects executive pay. That’s the “Say on pay” legislative proposal which would require shareholders to cast nonbinding votes on executive pay

lol. Nonbinding. So essentially, it means nothing. But if it were binding would that really make a difference?

Public company ownership is just that, public. Anyone in America can purchase a share in a public company, with no discriminating strings attached. But if that’s the case, then don’t citizens already have control over executive pay?

Of course they do.

Shareholders elect board members who in turn recruit and compensate executives for a well-run corporation. So it seems to me, if shareholders disagree with how much an executive is being paid, all they really have to do is demand that the board release them, take control of the board themselves, or, according to company bylaws, replace those board members with more intelligent leadership at the next annual meeting. These are not hard things. The only reason executives make as much as they do is because shareholders aren’t opposed to it.

If you’re not a majority shareholder in a major corporation, you can continue to complain about executive pay, or you can fix the problem the right way. By affecting the companies real leadership. Do what you should and vote with your wallet. No better way to affect a public company than to motivate shareholders  to make better decisions. And the best way to a shareholders heart, is by his wallet.

Mandatory Cap

Opponents of Say on Pay, including President-Elect Barack Obama, have voiced a desire to be able to limit executive pay to that of 20 times that of the average worker’s salary. That, they argue, would create a “fair” compensation structure.

The concept of “fair” in regards to pay is really what frustrates me. Is it fair for an executive to make $20,000,000 a year while someone in the lower rungs is only making $20,000? While I agree it’s not fair, I hardly think it’s appropriate for the Government to regulate how shareholders (aka The People) chooses to compensate it’s leadership and representatives. To me, this only furthers the US mindset of entitlement.

Since$20,000,000 vs. $20,000  is clearly not fair,  something must be done to make it fair. We’re entitled to such! The thought of taking action (Voting with your wallet, see above) is despicable. Someone, fix this problem for me!

A friend of mine and a wise man once reiterated to me a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. That the people are endowed with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Emphasis has been added on what I believe to be a critical detail in our declaration of independence. People have the right to pursue happiness. By the foundation and laws of our nation, no man is guaranteed happiness, but all men are free to pursue a life of happiness.

While that last thought will likely one day become an enormous blog article all it’s own, I found it an appropriate thought to convey here, as we discuss the idea of entitlement, fairness, and yes, executive pay.

On Saturday, November 22nd, Gail Collins and the New York Times printed an Op/Ed piece entitled “Time For Him To Go”.

The article goes over several reasons why the author believes George W. Bush is essentially incapable of governing effectively, and recommends two resignations occur so that an unconstitional extension of power can be given to Barack Obama.

Let’s take a look at my favorite quote in the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html?_r=3

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

Where do I begin? The article itself is actually really quite infuriating. But the most infuriating part is this womans desire to completely undermine the Constitution, and in my opinion, power of the people. The best part of this line? Let me reiterate in case you missed it:

“Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing”.

So, in a new level of unconstitutional party politics, Pelosi would give presidential power to a person who is not yet in office so they could ‘begin governing’. Wow. What an incredible concept. Not only that, but the whole aire of the comment is classic. 

And let’s not forget another good part, “Obivously, she’d defer to her party’s…” – Yes, she’d obviously defer power to her party. You know, because naturally the power of the party is so strong that despite the chain of command established by our Constitution, the party’s desires really should take precedence.

And then people wonder why I’m so incredibly uncomfortable with the concept of a Single-Party Congress, Senate, and President. But that’s another topic.

As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.

Yes! As a bonus we can achieve yet another social milestone that really shouldn’t matter anyway. But since the presidency is a childish game of school-yard politics, let’s make sure that we get a woman in their to boot! Regardless of her ability to govern.

But then again, her ability to govern doesn’t really matter anway. Obviously the power to govern would be given to Barack Obama.

If you could ask a Presidential candidate just one question, what would it be?

We’ll even go so far as to live in a fairy-tale for this post, and let’s pretend they have to answer it in a reasonably direct manner, with no talking points or off-topic banter. In real life, this is rarely the case, but for the sake of “What If’s” lets play that game.

After much thought, I’ve decided I want my question to reflect on their character, as well as their intentions. After all, I want my one question to forcibly reveal as much about a political candidate as it possibly can, right?

It has to be a question that will provide you something you can’t often get anywhere else. After all, there is talking-point after talking-point on the Candidate websites, in press releases and other distributed political junk. Their “positions” are usually easy to determine, even if they change from time to time .But if we have just one question, we’d better make it an exceptionally worth-while and revealing question. Something like “What are your plans for the economy” would simply be a waste of a rare opportunity.

And then it hit me. Since all the major, and even minor but relevant candidates running are generally  members of the Senate or Congress, I realized exactly what it was I wanted to know about these candidates.

It’s these Senators and Congressmen that are telling me time and time again that if elected, they can truly change my country for the better. My one question?

As a Senator/Congressman, why do you think you need to be elected President of the United States in order to make a difference?

Presidents don’t pass legislation. Presidents don’t typically author legislation. The Senators and Congressmen of our nation are the best politically positioned people to make a difference in the way our government operates, and the direction in which our country goes. Why does Barack Obama, John McCain, Clinton, Huckabee, and even my often-favorite Ron Paul believe that being president will finally empower them to once and for all make a difference in the nation? Are they telling me that as the authors and approver’s of our nations legislation, they’re simply powerless against a president who’s veto can be overthrown by the very position they hold?

I wish I could ask all the candidates that question. Their answer would be telling of their character, thought process, and intentions for the Presidency of my country.

What would your question be?

This post is placed before you in an unbiased and undetermined manner. Take from it what you will.

Long-Ago Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Thoughts?