walrus51

Mr. Boehner:  A large majority of us are really disappointed in you and Eric Cantor.

The majority of Americans have no allegiance to Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers.

We want to see our elected officials come to the table with open minds, seeking to do what is correct and right for our country. We don’t much care who your campaign contributors are, or what sorts of issues you are dealing with in your upcoming election campaign.

We do understand that you – as an elected member of Congress – need to run for re-election every 2 years.

That said: you accepted the position of Speaker of the House, which implies that you agreed to rise above the local issues specific to your rural & primarily agricultural district in Ohio and to function as a leader across our very diverse nation.

I think the vast majority of our fellow citizens expect you to be objective, rational and strategic in your words and your actions.

Your recent contention that “No substantive progress has been made in the talks between the White House and the House over the last two weeks” appears to be both confrontational and incendiary.

Incendiary comments certainly do not support the concept of compromise.

Mr. Boehner:  As a citizen, a tax payer and voter in the U.S.A., I can’t vote for you because I don’t live in your Ohio district, but I can say that I am truly disappointed by your callous disregard for the needs, wants and desires of me and the majority of our U.S. neighbors.

I vaguely remember the tale of Faust, a successful scholar who increasingly became bored with his daily life.  In the story, Faust made a deal with Mephistopheles, the agent for Satan, exchanging his soul for access to greater knowledge, pleasures of the flesh and many other previously unattainable treasures.

Since its origin in the 16^th century, Faust’s tale has been used as the base for many written, film and musical works.  The meaning of the word and name has been reinterpreted through the ages.  Faust — and the adjective Faustian — is frequently used to describe an arrangement where an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success: the proverbial “deal with the Devil“.

Back in the day, it was generally thought that the person who had made a pact with Satan also promised to kill children or consecrate them to the Devil at the moment of birth; have sexual relations with demons; and sometimes produce children from their trysts with the succubus.

Here we are – late November 2012 — well on our way into the 21^st century.  What relevance could the Faustian story have today?

Satan is watching very closely as we approach the Fiscal Cliff.  Satan knows the House Republicans virtually all signed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” with Americans for Tax Reform.

Grover Norquist (a.k.a. Mephistopheles) frequently appears – out of nowhere – to remind these elected officials of their pact (pledge) which commits legislators and candidates for office to oppose tax increases.  At the House level, signers pledge to:

(1)    Oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

(2)    Oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

I wondered, “…who is this Grover Norquist, and how is it that he has control over so many of our elected officials?”

I looked him up.  Popular sources tell us that he was born in the mid 1950’s in Sharon, PA, grew up in Weston, MA; earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees at Harvard – just a typical American citizen.

However, recent information about his background reveals that Mr. Norquist was actually born in 1561 in the Swedish province of Halsingland.  His family was ostracized as a result of religious and political unrest, and the family was forced to move to Germany in 1567, where they were settled into temporary quarters in the City of Hamburg, ultimately permanently relocated in 1568 to Nuremberg in southern Germany.  Nuremberg was the location of Faust’s story, putting Grover Norquist in very close proximity to both Faust and to the real dark side, Mephistopheles himself.

More alarming:  There seems to be little to no information available about Grover Norquist from 1568 to 1956, leaving a great deal of question about his activities over that almost 400 year gap.

Whether or not he is a direct agent of Satan, Grover Norquist’s power over a majority of elected officials ought to raise our interest.

Instead, our Congress, our FBI and our CIA seem to be singularly focused on a retired general who slipped into bed with a beautiful and intelligent woman.

I didn’t vote for Grover Norquist.  Best I know, none of us voted for Grover Norquist.  Why are we letting him commandeer the strings which control the elected officials who are supposed to guide our nation to optimum outcomes?

Shouldn’t we all be enraged that Grover Norquist – who, at best is a 16^th century Faustian character – has somehow taken over the moral compass of America?

Shouldn’t we be worried that some of our highly ambitious elected officials in Washington may have signed a “deal with the Devil” where they surrendered their moral integrity in order to achieve power and success?

Shouldn’t we be worried that the elected officials who made their pact with Satan also promised to kill children or consecrate them to the Devil at the moment of birth; have sexual relations with demons; and sometimes produce children from their trysts with the succubus?

Willard M. Romney
3 Cottage Road
Belmont, MA 02478

Dear Mr. Romney:

I think I am one of many U.S. taxpayers and voters who really admire and appreciate your release of your personal federal tax return for 2011.

Although it seems to be very long (379 pages?), I’m sure you wanted to ensure that every detail was disclosed so there can be no doubt or challenge to your transparency.

Despite your best intentions, I found as I reviewed each page in your return a number of questions and/or omissions.

The majority of the pages of your 2011 return pertain to Form 8621 reporting. In virtually every case, the preparer tells us, “…the number of shares is unknown.”

Now, I know if this tax preparer worked for me, I would have said, “Well, did you call them to get the number of shares? After all of this extra time we’ve taken to file, don’t you think it would be nice to be able to provide this information?”

As I kept reading through this 379 page document, I could only think that if an accounting firm was presenting this to me, I’d be angry.

I would accuse them of waste, at least. And, I’d be really concerned that maybe they were ‘padding the bill’.

I was tempted to think that this was a creative example of obfuscation, but I’m sure that’s not what you had in mind at all.

I think you need to have a long and serious talk with the folks at Price Waterhouse Coopers. They may have let you down.

Worse than just their seemingly excessive production of paper, it looks as though there may be some computational errors – particularly in the areas of itemized deductions and AMT calculations – that won’t stand the test of scrutiny.

I know you didn’t intend for that, but you did earn both a Harvard JD and MBA, so most people will expect that you would be able to differentiate between compliance with the U.S. tax laws, and stretching them to test the limits.

Again, thank you for disclosing. I know you are very busy, and I certainly will forgive you for not having had the time to do a complete and thorough review of all of the details.

Willard M. Romney
3 Cottage Road
Belmont, MA 02478

Dear Mr. Romney,

Today, I was listening to the radio in my car (a Chevrolet, by the way) on my way home from the office, and I heard an audio clip in which you were apparently speaking to a group of potential donors.

In that audio clip, you evidently referenced the 47 percent of Americans ‘who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. They will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax. My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

I want you to know that I am part of the group of Americans who are with Obama.

I also want you to know that – if annual income of $250,000 and under is the cut-off for ‘middle class’, I live in a household which has consistently exceeded your threshold for ‘middle class’.

Yes, Mr. Romney, there are people in the U.S. who rely on earned income to pay their bills; who pay federal income taxes at the marginal rate; and who are penalized by the Alternative Minimum Tax (‘AMT’) — which I recall was originally intended to equalize income tax impact on our U.S. neighbors who excessively benefit from tax loopholes.

Not all of us who support President Obama are dependent on government. Not all of us pay no income tax. In fact, many of us do take personal responsibility seriously, and care for our lives.

Mr. Romney, you have confirmed by rhetoric as well as by action that — while you claim to be a self-made man — you are a member of the “New Elite” – the beneficiary of a wealthy upbringing, private schools and a Harvard pedigree.

You seem to be completely distanced from at least 99% of our fellow Americans.

One has to wonder: Why do you even bother to campaign when it is clear that you could go home, close the gates, and live out your life in the lap of luxury?

Someday, will you share with us: what is your real agenda? And, who is the wizard behind the curtain, directing this improbable screenplay?

I really appreciate the service provided by NPR and WNYC in terms of trying to present a variety of positions and opinions on our economy, our country and a broad array of other subjects.

Tonight, I listened to an interview of former Gov. John H. Sununu by Brian Lehrer.

Gov. Sununu has some interesting perspectives based on years of academic and political leadership, as well as a sound educational foundation – including a PhD from MIT.

Gov. Sununu has some strong opinions, some of which he shared with listeners in the interview.

One opinion I heard revolved around federal income taxes on dividends and capital gains.  As I understood Gov. Sununu, his posture is that we need to protect the favored tax status on dividends and capital gains because this rewards and encourages entrepreneurs to take risks, to create new enterprise, and to create and sustain new jobs.

I like this strategy for active equity investors who devote a substantial amount of their own personal time and energy, in addition to their capital investment, in the business.

Where I believe we ought to consider drawing the line is with passive equity investors.

Under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which essentially eliminated many of the tax preferences formerly available through real estate investment transactions.  In the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress “relaxed” the rules somewhat for active real estate investors, allowing those who meet defined requirements necessary to be considered a real estate professional to bypass the passive activity rules for real estate investments in which they materially participated.

Today, we allow those who are essentially passive equity investors to treat significant amounts of passive income from equity investments in the form of dividends and capital gains as preference items for federal tax purposes.  Meanwhile, hard working Americans – including most small business owners – are taxed at standard income tax rates, compounded by the mysterious “Alternative Minimum Tax”.

Our standard income tax system is indexed so that as taxable income increases, the effective tax rate increases.

As an example, an American family with 2 adults which had a taxable income of $100k from employment in 2011 were in the 25% tax bracket, but they didn’t have to pay 25% in federal income taxes on the full amount. Rather, they paid 10% on the first $16,050, 15% on the next $49,050, and 25% on the last $34,900. This works out to a federal income tax obligation of $17,687.50, or an effective rate of just under 18%.

Now, contrast this against a passive investor who receives most of his income from passive activities, and where there is no indexing in place.  How is this rational, appropriate or equitable?

I would have hoped to hear a well-educated and knowledgeable individual like John H. Sununu give us a more informed and critical analysis of the overall situation here, versus trying to create what sounded on the radio to be a biased, inflammatory and very narrow interpretation of the facts.