Download | Duration: 00:28:07

And our all reaching government is going to pay for them by eliminating all the so called "loopholes" business presently enjoys.

I see a couple of problems.

Those of us who file as Schedule S corporations don't pay a corporate income tax, we pay personal income taxes on the distributed profits of our corporations. (Yes I own a Sub S Corporation.)

Every year, I balance my books, fill out an 1120S, hand my personal tax folder the required K-1, mail in the 1120S, and take the profit or loss to my 1090 and all is usually well. I do get to deduct all the normal business expenses that my company accrues (like that accounting jargon?). All due by January 31st or I get a big fine.

If I lose money, I can loan myself enough cash to keep things running. If I make money, it shows up on my tax form, subject to all kinds of other personal taxes.

My little computer company doesn't dabble in real estate or petroleum reserves, so many of the so called loopholes don't apply, and since I'm the only employee, my company is not even subject to Obamacare, yet.

I'm not in any danger of taking my operation overseas. Perhaps if I was subject to all the myriad regulations some of my larger counterparts face, I'd see that as a viable alternative, but I'm in the computer service area and there are plenty of people like me all over the world.

Corporations choose to move facilities overseas to escape picky environmental regulations, high taxes, meddlesome labor organizations, and the specter of Obamacare forcing higher and higher costs on operations. The threat of some labor union deciding to target your business, or local laws preventing you from moving parts of your operation to be competitive just adds to the incentive to take it all elsewhere.

Now if we look at the example of Obamacare - what makes you think that once this regime cuts out all the "loopholes" and drops the tax rates, that certain industries won't then petition the government to be exempted, allowing them to continue to take all these so called "corporate welfare" deductions.

Seriously, you don't think that the corporations working in the "green" or other Obama favored industries won't be given a whole new laundry list of write-offs?

No, just cut the corporate tax rates if you can, don't fool with the regular income tax rates and if you must, get rid of all the industry specific exemptions, but leave the present depreciation and other business expense deductions alone.

Unless that happens, the current Obama Corporate Tax cuts are just another political football, to be discarded in the middle of November.

The Supreme Court is taking on the forces of Affirmative Action at the University of Texas: How Supreme Court ruling on Texas could reduce affirmative action across US

IMHO, Affirmative Action is an idea that has finally run its course.

There are so many kids, of all races, who need a hand up, and we’re spending billions to “help” them through these programs. There have been a few successes, but now the problem is too many kids don’t want the help.

They’d rather play video games than work in school. They’d rather knock up their girlfriend than learn how to live in a family. They’d rather shoot hoops than study. They'd rather goof off than demand that their fellow students allow their teachers to teach them something.

Their parents don’t help matters – most are content to sit on the couch, watch Dr. Phil or Oprah, and worry about their child’s “self esteem” instead of pushing them to go out and do something positive with their life. Every time I hear a High School kid talk about how their parent "respects their space," I cringe because you can't be your kid's buddy. You have to be their parent.

I can almost always tell which athletes are going to be successful either in their sport, or later in life.

When you look around the crowd, BOTH parents are out there cheering for their kid. When (and if) they get recruited, BOTH parents are listed, even if they are divorced.

We’ve been tricked into thinking that “It Takes a Village” and a big government to assure future success.

No, it actually just takes two active parents.

Download | Duration: 00:28:16

• If you are dedicated to the proposition that not all workers are created equal...
• That some workers, because they pay an extra $35 a week out of their paycheck are somehow better workers...
• That every union worker is better qualified and does better work than any non-union worker.

then I suppose they are.

But "Union Shop" laws fly against the American dislike of monopoly - if you want to work in some fields, you are required to belong to a union. I know, because I used to be in a business that requires union membership if you want to work in any of the major cities - broadcasting.

One of the great ironies of that business is that every one of the major conservative Talk Show hosts belongs to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. If you want to open a mike and talk using any of the major network facilities in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles you have to belong, pay the dues, and contribute to the pension fund. Fact of life.

One reason Rush Limbaugh built his own studio in Florida, a right to work state, is that he can do his show with about half the production staff that the same effort would require in New York. He still needs 4 people, a call screener, an engineer, a producer, and a transcriptionist.

But in New York, he'd also need a director, and a general assistant producer, and probably another engineer. Those 3 people can add up to $100,000 in direct costs, plus all the higher taxes for 3 hours a day.

But I digress.

Unions claim that through their apprenticeship and jouneyman training programs, they provide better trained workers than those trained on the job or in trade schools. All you have to do is somehow join the union which usually means someone in the union recommends you. It leads to a lot of father and son careers, in itself not too bad, but what about some kid off the streets who doesn't have a union member father or uncle. (Yes they do have some programs, but they still don't let enough "outsiders" in.)

In any case, if the Labor Unions still had value, there wouldn't be a problem with right to work, and everyone would be clamoring to require Union membership for every job. But you don't need to join a union to get training to pick up trash at a work site or to clean pots in a restaurant.

The dirty secret is that Unions now exist to keep existing jobs exactly as they were when that job was created, and to keep that person in that existing job forever. If you want to add responsibilities, a union tends to want to create another unique job, even if that job only requires a couple of hours a week.

Unions used to fight for safer working conditions. Now they let the governmental alphabet soup agencies do that for them, They used to lead the fight for better wages, and the end of employer abuses towards employees. Now they seem to only serve as a way to collect money to funnel to political favorites regardless of the belief of their members because good employers know that you pay people more to do good work.

The National Chamber of Commerce is again beating their drum for spending more money to fix the "infrastructure."

OK, I'll go along, but let non-union contractors bid on the work, and don't require them to pay those mythical "equivalent wages." Let the Unions put in a bid to do the work for the contractors, but let the contractors hire the best and lowest price workers regardless of union affiliation.

Then watch the economy take off, as new people enter the workforce and the employer force. Paying for more "infrastructure" under the present system is just lining the pockets of the politicians who have Union obligations. Don't they remember the last "stimulus" program?