There is a napkin (or at least was) with a fascinating little picture of a misshapen layer cake on it. It came fluttering out of Bill Clinton’s pocket one day, as he took something from his coat, whilst amidst conversation. And lay on the ground for all to see. Only to be quickly recovered and tucked back in … a very nice bit of thinking, worth saving.
I think there are many deals with God (and still currently active). Not just the one/many in the Bible. Why do I think that?
The Bible is one particular set of stories about certain individuals, but not a complete, comprehensive, exclusive set of individuals or experiences. The Bible is one lineage, at certain profound moments, from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham. If I believe there is a grain of truth and real experience for these people in the Bible, can’t I envision there are other humans who had had similar experiences? Can Noah be one of many having this conversation with God? Does Adam have to be unique, and could there have been several Garden’s of Eden? One person (Abraham) having the only conversation with God at the time? The concept of saving Sodom but for 10 reverent people indicates there are many reverent good people in God’s eyes.
I also don’t believe this is a complete 100% history of all interactions for these individuals. These are the ones preserved and carefully handed forward through generations. But I can envision there are others.
My God is sentient, planning, and acts. Seeking the reverent, good person. And having discussions, covering very particular details, and making some big commitments both ways, at certain critical junctures.
Who am I to say that Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, or Joseph Smith didn’t have a God-experience, and form a covenant? In fact, the concept of many covenants indicates a better world, than through the lens of “one true way”. My personal covenant also continues more comfortably in a multi-covenant world. I think this multi-covenant view is closer to the world as it is, with many millions and billions attempting to follow different paths.
I like that Islam brings more people to the ideas of reverent goodness. My Judaism is certainly personally aligned with Christians in this regard. I see a common definition of reverent goodness through many faiths. This is the highest value for me, not which particular one it is. Look, it’s hard enough on each of us, no matter which covenant you follow. I celebrate any efforts towards reverent goodness.
The President should press to “pay for the wars” by closing tax loopholes, under the idea we are now going to clean up the Republicans’
mess. Puts a different context on getting our financial house in order.
Wars as a general rule should be explicitly legislated and supported, and a specific tax levy will make it clearer to the American people what this War policy means. But with the wars winding down, the ongoing meaning of the levy will be lost.
However, the political purpose to clean up the past, to work with Republicans to finish the work they started, can still be used effectively. We are currently better aligned to close loopholes, and since I believe tax loopholes and rate reform are both needed, making progress on the easier one is still progress.
We clearly need to have better handling of and stewardship for Federal Government assets. At a time when “privitization” and sweet heart deals are rampant, the Feds need to step up tracking and management of our mutually held assets. These may be in the sale or disposal of assets, but also in the user fees, leases and other rights agreements with mining, oil production, forestry and other industries.
Because the Federal Government must achieve the best price in the use of Federal Government assets. Anything less is a dereliction of duty and illegal. Unconstitutional? In part. Certainly Unamerican. I’d like a single list and some visibility to the financial success of managing Federal Government assets. Not too difficult a task to create the list, add some FAR and other regulatory changes.
We shouldn’t have to make the case for proper management.
How about an asset register and balance sheet?
It is the wrong argument to debate raising tax rates on the rich or any other group, without first dealing with an easier and potentially quite fruitful area of Federal Government targeted hand-outs. I define tax code handouts as any credit, subsidy, deduction, lowered rate or exemption that would alter the tax due for singled-out groups, industries or even individual companies. Individual and corporate tax favoritism.
We seem to be coming close to the issue of tax reform, and several important potential reform line items will be considered by the Super-Committee. But it is just as likely that none will be addressed. There will not be a systematic examination of all favoritism. I think the fundamentals need to be revisited, and recognize that Congress is the root source of much of the problem, through “legalized” unconstitutional mistreatment of broad groups of taxpaying U.S. citizens. We need the real elimination of all forms of favoritism, regardless of good intention or source.
The Federal Government tax code is not the place to subsidize industries, technologies or even individual companies. Why favor luxury jet manufacturers with tax credits and favorable tax treatment for business expenses? Over teachers? Plumbing supply distributors? Since Congress is clearly not expert in reading business plans or conducting economic forecasting the basis for many of these decisions is potent blend of unsupported pseudo-economic thinking mixed with pure politics.
The tax code is not the place to assess the relative value or success of technology or economy segments. Tax hand-outs make management lazy. Favoritism in tax code treatment often supports the wrong side (through bad luck and bad decision-making). Because subsidies and other handouts never become obsolete, they actually retard innovation.
The basic premise of the tax code, as defined originally and in part in the Constitution, is for equitable tax treatment of all citizens. The favoritism for one group, industry or company violates fair taxation for the rest of us. It’s an equity argument – it is unfair to the bulk of the country.
It is unfair taxation to benefit one group or individual corporation, effectively forcing higher taxes on the rest. Probably unconstitutional, a violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 9, insofar as it violates the principle of equality in the allocation of representation and taxes. While you can argue whether progressive taxation is also a violation of this principle, favoritism to any small group is the more egregious violation. And it is certainly un-American, breaking the founding principles of our citizens-based Federal Government.
I’d like to see a tax bill that is focused on just two simple ideas first.
1. Lining Up and Ending Tax Code Hand-outs
Create a commission with the purpose to unwind Federal Government tax code hand-outs. I’d like to see a public website, organized by hand-outs, identifying the industry and individual companies, estimated volume of business affected, number of companies, and estimated employees.
How much is this? It’s a shocking number to be sure. Not certain that anyone really knows how much.
A public list of several hundred of these inequities would spur a different kind of dialogue and create some interesting mechanisms based in transparency, social networking, and shared research. Such a tool would offer policymakers fascinating new forms of connecting to the full stream of opinions, interest groups, and lobbies. But perhaps with a chance to re-establish the real size and energy of different groups. T he decisions taken using this kind of support tool would possibly be somewhat better guided by facts and perspective.
I’d like to see three waves of tax reform, with commitments for each round (maybe one per year). The easy stuff first, and to work out the dynamics and build momentum. An agenda issued early for the next rounds, to solicit comment and debate in a structured way.
We should be looking at the most crass of individual give-aways to tough question affecting tens of millions of individual tax payers. Tough questions also must be addressed – for example, the mortgage interest tax deduction, affecting taxpayers with more than 100 million outstanding residential property mortgages. This deduction is unfair to renters, and warps property market pricing, and is a supporting cause of the recent mortgage market melt-down. The Federal Government is not in the business of advocating home ownership and paying people to do so.
2. Federal Government Investment Fund
Should the Federal Government directly support development? Is solar energy technology better than cleaner coal? I think the answer is no, the Federal Government through Congressional largesse should not be making these decisions with the endless series of individual, targeted bills, in a politically leaning and financially swayable swirl of debate and bargain-making.
How about creating a singular Federal Government Business/Technology Investment Fund? Take a portion of all the billions in targeted handouts and create a loans pool, with maybe three levels of interest subsidization? Any new technology company individually can apply for loans and are granted based on a transparent application, scoring and approval process. The better ideas get ranked and funded over the lesser ones. Much like is performed based on reasoned scientific judgment within NIH.
Many incumbents for funding will inevitably become refunded, but in an equitable way where there is an explicit evaluation and Federal Government expectation of return, both in economic impact by the successful loans, and in the repayment of the loans themselves.
By approaching funding this way, we do more than just surface and balance the process, and squeeze out the most egregious, obsolete and unfounded of propositions. But there is an opportunity for a fundamental shift from hand-out to loans. We also change the trajectory of Federal Government budgeting, because this portion of budgeting is removed entirely to a separate, visible, self replenishing pool. The creation of a growing $50 – 100 billion pool will remove hundreds of billions from the budget over the next ten years. It will get us all closer to getting to a more cleanly constructed Federal Government and the true expenditures.
Why loans? Because hand-outs of cash obscure the proper testing of the new idea to economic realities. Someone that needs to plan to pay back a loan is a much bigger believer in their new idea. There’s a transfer of responsibility and an explicit agreement. I’d rather fund the new idea guy stepping forward putting themselves on the line than some whole set of companies in an industry with no accountability for the Federal Government largesse.
I don’t like stepping across the line in having the Federal Government take equity positions in these new firms, as this is another form masking the true economic circumstances. And it blurs the line necessary in the future for proper regulatory oversight, or even potentially criminal investigation.
The giveaways need to go away, but we do need to provide for some level of Federal Government development catalyst. The vast majority would agree the correct level is not zero. In the future, the political debate will be over the level of pool investment, and potentially so far as the structure of interest subsidies. Hopefully it’s over how to use the surplus created through the Investment Fund success. Not over specific industries and business ideas.
Finally, and Only Finally, Tax Rate Reform
Or which may not be needed (much) in the end. The time to debate what the equitable tax rate levels are is after the success of creating a fair tax code that is simpler, and more equitable for all citizens and corporations.
Besides setting rates, there are other areas that should be accomplished including solving tax overlap –eliminating all forms of double taxation, from payroll taxes to dividends. And estate tax. This is also not always factored in when considering marginal tax rates.
Once all groups return substantially closer to paying actual tax rates being debated can we even assess whether the rates need to go up or down? Once the hand-outs are vetted out of the figures, we can truly assess who would be affected (or even whether anyone needs to be affected) no matter the tax tier.
I am amused to hear the overused, grand pronouncements about the “founding fathers”, especially from the Tea Party. No groups could be further apart.
The founding fathers (take your pick of definition: those signing the Declaration of Independence, those framing the Constitution, or the big seven – Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) were the best in their fields. Strong, principalled leaders. Modest.
Where are the equivalent leaders today?
As I watch less TV and pay less attention to advertising, I notice it surrounding me more. And the message that creeps out as a constant theme is: we are surrounded by predators. Hungry, voracious animal corporations with crappy products and only tricky (sometimes to the point of brilliant) marketing tactics designed to lure you and trap you. Entrenchment they call it. And we are helpless. Buyer beware is the advice.
For too long Goverment has abdicated its core responsibility to determine the limits of acceptable behavior. Too many companies believe that they have the open space to prey on society. With continued mergers, weakening of regulatory oversight (a constant pressure pushed by corporate lobbyists), deceptive marketing practices to obscure the real situation and the disappearance of ethics in corporate management, we have unleashed powerful, hungry forces on an unsuspecting, generally trusting public. The imbalance – in power and information – between corporate predators and individual citizens has grown dangerously large.
What has been forgotten? Corporations are not voting citizens. Corporations operate in our economy with our permission. Our society, and the actions of its citizens, decides what we need (and don’t). We are not defined by the corporations (or their marketing and brands) – we have the power in the firmament of our society – to define them. Citizens must decide what is acceptable behavior and the role of corporations in our society.
With the recent market movements, perhaps we can now take a fresh look at energy policy and regulation.
Underlying the old thinking is the illusion of capitalist market forces in our energy system. Yet, the “market” for crude oil is no balanced market at all – it is a supply chain. The movement of product from drilling to the gas pump is not governed by the type of market forces where sellers and buyers achieve a balance based on a culmination of millions of individual selling and buying decisions. Allowing the energy producers to use free-market language is damaging to our society.
We need to move beyond a language that serves suppliers, and get back to the reality that we as a society are ill-served by the current system.
Other ideas that are more palatable, easier to implement and possibly covered under existing law:
SEC “Seal of Approval” – the SEC could take a position on each and every BOD nomination for every corporation. Start with weeding out the obvious conflicts, but with experience can develop both a set of minimum standards, rule-out conditions, and possibly even scorecard metrics. [This wouldn’t be a bad idea for a new website service developed privately].
SEC Added Nominations – rather than replacing (initially) the existing nomination process, the SEC could enact “sponsorship” of nominees into BOD votes.
Both of these may influence both BOD governance by corporations, as well as shareholder behavior.
I have been unhappy as many in our country about the idea of the Federal Government having to take ownership in major corporations, make loans to banks, oust board members and executives, and set limits on executive pay. Not because I don’t understand that these temporary measures are preventive and necessary, but because I don’t see the long-term systemic solution. In that vein, I have been musing about what major infrastructure changes, surgical in nature and practical enough to survive implementation, the Government hopefully WILL be focused on as we enter the second act of this tragicomedy.
Independent Sourcing of Boards of Directors Nominees – The relationship of just about every BOD with executive management has become too close and lost the aspect of independent review, oversight and governance. As a result, board members no longer perform their essential function. With the increase in institutional ownership (mutual funds), the ultimate shareholder is further removed from a relationship and representation by the BOD. This is fixable.
Where the process fails is the lack of enforced independence in nominating proposed board members.
Boards of publically traded corporations are already regulated in terms of how they must be governed in order to enjoy public trading and ownership. It is no great leap to establish a system where board membership, and the nomination process of prospective board members, is restored to represent shareholders, not the corporation.
The SEC should manage the process of nomination and the election of board members. We need simple rules for candidacy, vetting conflict of interest, limits on the number of boards on which any one individual can serve and still fulfill their duty, and monitoring of cross-relationships in board representation (i.e., I will be on your BOD if you will do the same for me). Today’s technology simplifies this proposal to an easy to implement function, as long as we support the idea that the BOD represents shareholders, not the company.
Board Compensation – this is where we need to focus our energy as shareholders, not on the executives. If we can trust that our representatives are independent and aligned with OUR interests, we can allow a degree of flexibility when it comes to management rewards. Still, we need to ensure that the BOD compensation is aligned with these principals and does not introduce an implicit conflict of interest. Compensation must be transparent, comparable and determined by separate action of shareholders.
Term Limits – Rotation in BOD service ensures that the subsequent relationship between the BOD and management doesn’t switch in alignment. Long term relationships are essential to allow BOD members to learn the functions and strategies of the company, and to preserve long-term thinking in the execution of corporate strategies. However, with multiple members, the idea of a gradual transition over decades is healthy and not damaging to the interests of the shareholders.
BOD Education – Serving on a BOD of any large corporation is not an easy matter – there is a extensive body of knowledge and practice to properly handle one’s oversight responsibilities. Looking into various functions in a corporaton with tens of thousands of employees, complex business holdings, and a range of business models takes aptitude and considerable time. We need to arm our representatives with the best preparation possible. This cannot be assumed – we need to make this explicit in the process. Not so onerous that we create an exclusive class of certified BOD members, but with an eye to giving a wider potential set of participants a leg up and a minimum standard of conduct we can rely on.
These changes will establish and preserve an independent perspective that serves to monitor corporate behavior in many areas – executive compensation, financial oversight, and illegal activity – among all others. There are too many corporations, future opportunities and too many business models to allow heavy-handed, yesterday’s thinking Government to micro-manage the internal functions of corporations. We need to establish and rely on mechanisms that allow for innovation and flexibility within the concept that it is the shareholders not the company that benefits from proper independent Boards of Directors.
Mark Tanen Writings 