Fwd: ADDENDUM BEFORE CONTINUATION WITH ICING

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 9:58 am
Subject: ADDENDUM BEFORE CONTINUATION WITH ICING

Editor's Suggestion: You might want to read article proper first: Title: "She Only had Time

for a Short One" and Subtitle "Married to Cynicism, Hopelessness and the  Veiled :Lady."

                                                by R. DePersio

Let's Amplify...The President's Bi-Partisan Commission has announced its proposals to

deal with deficit and debt - and going contrary to popular opinion - we are use to being

in that place! - we whole-heartedly embrace them with one exception: we need to invest

in restoring NASA as a potent technological engine of our economy for a virtual guarantee

of sustained economic growth. 

        One of its recommendations: Cut the Corporate Income tax from 35% to 26%. Ours is

the second largest in the world; Japan has 40%. After all of this time Citizen Reporter was

finally heard. He recommended doing this way back at the peek of the Clinton-ACorn-Fed-

Housing-Frank-Fanni-Freddie -Caused economic/financial crisis and has been promoting

ever a since as a major way to generate jobs, increase R & D, expand existing factories and

create new ones. We also proposed cutting the Capital Gains Tax for the self-same reasons.

Wait a minute and hold your horses!: How is this an Add-on!?! Go for the meds...Back...We

spoke of subsidies. We should phase-out subsidies as per suggestions in article proper. We

should do so over a ten year period to enable economic adaptation. Perhaps, there should

be a trigger mechanism of sorts to be triggered only in the case of a dire emergency and

after careful consideration of all other options.

        We are hesitant in this regard for we question the very nature of subsidies. Un-capitalistic

- absolutely; Unconstitutional - likely. We opposed the auto bail-out but supported the

financial one. Employing hindsight, we believe that the president should have issued an

executive order to the effect that no entity, foreign or domestic, could lay a financial

claim against financial institutions for a 3-month period while those institutions engaged

in re-structuring.  Constitutional? Far more so then the bail-outs themselves - the loans

to the financial sector which Obama turned into virtual stocks and maintains that

commercial banks, investment banks, combos, and insurers - those which received

loans ans those which didn't  - whole industries - must clear decisions with his

financial czar. The auto industry should have gone to bankruptcy court. Instead Obama

played bankruptcy judge - BIG-TIME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - - not part of the president's

constitutional job description. Why did he do it? A bankruptcy judge would have spread

the pain. Obama wanted to give the shaft to corporate execs and stock- and bond- holder's

and spare union bosses and workers too much discomfort. Certainly a matter for the new

House to take up as possible grounds for imp......investigation. And, returning to the

target, our reticence for a trigger-mechanism as regards subsidies and one a liberal

president made invoke prematurely and not allow free-market forces to operate for they

disdain capitalism as much as they disdain OUR Constitution! 

The states want and should have the land that the fed gov stole from it returned. The

Constitution gave 16 responsibilities to the fed gov and management of state land

wasn't one of them! This will enable us over a ten year period - adjustment phase - to

substantially shrink the Department of the Interior and the EPA (we think that

semi-independent federal agencies are unconstitutional anyway, therefore, it would

constitute a two-for!). It would afford states time to decide how it wants to allocate ITS

LAND with respect to energy independence vs, environmental protection (it would     determine proper balance with state profit as an important factor) and which fed laws and  regs, including, environmental ones, it wishes to retain or modify or forgo. (Another

two-for: we would reduce deficit/debt and diminish size and power of fed gov!).

Well, there you have it until next time when we will show up with more proposals on

saving taxpayer money...Not so fast. Perhaps, our evaluation was premature: Article

proper was your first non-A.D.D.-ed article and we applauded you for it. Were we hasty?

Proper - fair; Addendum better. Perhaps, we should allow Citizen Reporter be who he is

and without too much help from his little 'friends!'