J E T S Crash and Burn

No Santonio, it is not okay. There have been numerous post-mortems (here's one from Grantland and Football Outsider's terrific Bill Barnwell citing leadership problems) but, honestly, there were probably too many problems with the team too pinpoint just a couple in an article. Clearly leadership is a problem on that that team is an issue, but this starts at the top with Rex Ryan and Brian Schottenheimer rather than with veterans like Santonio Holmes (don't get me wrong... Holmes is a schoolboy biatch). Rex Ryan has already taken the blame, as he should, but Schottenheimer has somehow remained above the fray. As a Jets fan (I know, right? Pray for me...), I hope that Schotty gets hired for a head coaching gig in Jacksonville or somewhere anywhere else. As long as he is their problem and no longer making inexplicable play calls from the Jets sideline. I know the United States in general has had a long history of children trading on their father's name, but how long can Schotty keep this con up? In my mind, he has to go. Preferably like 2 years ago. So if you have a timeline Rexy, that would be handy right about now.

The rest of the Jets' offensive problems are a bit harder to tackle. Holmes' recent contract extension (good call on that one guys... not at all premature) makes it very difficult to get rid of the erstwhile "Captain." The running game has been borderline non-existent and is not looking to get much better with the possible probable loss of LaDainian Tomlinson, and his pass catching ability, to free agency or retirement this upcoming off season. The offensive line, another leading cause of the inability to run, is another hard fix. Although some of it had to do with injuries, they just looked bad as a unit throughout the season (wasn't D'Brickashaw Ferguson supposed to be good?). After a season that started full of promise, the future looks somewhat bleak right now. This season's post-mortem, as most post-mortems are I guess, is terribly depressing (and I didn't even talk about Cromartie. PLEASE do not get me started on Cromartie...).

From the Annals of Common Sense- The Sense Strikes Back...

An article in the New York Times detailed how, despite raucous clamoring from various corners for reduced corporate taxes, 280 of the biggest publicly traded firms paid about half of the official corporate tax rate. In full disclosure, the study is based on a report from the liberal leaning Citizens for Tax Justice but it is still clear that many corporations use any loophole they can find to limit their tax exposure. A money quote from the article:

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

It seems, considering the facts from this article and the GOP reluctance to raise taxes, the easy solution would be to lower the corporate tax rate, say by 10% to a total of 25%, and close the loopholes. Thus, you would not have some corporations paying 10% (or 0%) and some corporations paying 35% (the actual rate) for an average 18.5% corporate tax rate. Instead, everyone pays a lower rate of 25%, which actually brings up revenue by 6.5%. And, as an added bonus, all corporations are treated fairly with none getting screwed for creative accounting. Seems fair, no? And would satisfy both political parties, no? Getting to the meat and potatoes of the matter...

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system. 

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school — things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

Worrrdddd. Again, I do not understand why this is even an argument. You cut taxes (and give Grover Norquist a boner) while raising revenues. What's not to love? Yo, POTUS... I'm ready to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Or you can slap me into that supposed Super Committee. Whenever you're ready. Just for the record, I play ball (in terrible shape, but decent court vision... classic PG) and recently gave up cigarettes (and we can cheat together. I'll never tell. I'm like a lock box). We can do this sir. YES WE CAN!

(Image from rally requesting NoMas Paine for C.E.A. Or a random Google Images pic. None of us have any way of knowing...)

On Occupy Wall Street and "Inside Job"; Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Financial WMDs

There is a lot of discussion on all sides of the political debate about what is exactly going on in Zucotti Park with all the tree hugging hippy crap. They are either a potentially unruly, anti-Semitic mob fomenting class warfare or a group of unfocused kids with legitimate issues who need to publicize their demands and specific legislative goals. These guys and gals really cannot catch a break.

Though this is hardly groundbreaking and has been stated by others before, I think what they are protesting is quite clear and I think a main issue was presented quite clearly in the 2010 documentary "Inside Job". The film examined the causes and aftermath (or, rather, the continued consequences) of the Great Recession. Personally, I found it very interesting but thought that it went a little heavy in the demonization of Wall Street. Specifically, the attempts to link risky investing behavior with wide spread cocaine use and fun with high priced hookers after hours, on the banks' dime, were patently ridiculous IMHO (I know many i-bankers and cannot say I've see that once). What "Inside Job" nailed though, and what I think is the main issue for many, many OWS protesters, is the incestuous nature of Wall Street, the government and academia. In theory, Wall Street is supposed to be both a self-regulating body as well as regulated by government agencies with those in academia providing an additional, unbiased, check. In reality, all of these are interrelated with government officials moving back and forth between government and banking and professors at eminent educational institutions such as Harvard and Columbia making large sums of money writing papers financed by interested parties and serving on the boards of many banks and Fortune 500 companies. Everyone has a personal interest in the status quo leading to numerous conflicts of interest that are rarely addressed (don't even get me started on rating agencies... this post is running long enough).

Considering that the Great Recession is a product of a system rife with conflicts of interest that led to failures in both outside and self regulation, it is not surprising that a mass of people (those 99 percenters) would be generally angry that any and all attempts of renewed regulation are being shot down. Dodd-Frank is rife with holes and the GOP is constantly trying to defund agencies integral to reform. The banks scream about how regulation will cut into (record) profits and a return to Glass-Steagall is seen as beyond the pale despite the fact that it prevented such recessions for the better part of 60 years (more on this in the future most likely). It's enough to make anyones blood boil.

Long story short (well, not really), 1. watch "Inside Job" (as long as you take some of the rhetoric with a grain of salt) and 2. everyone should give the OWS protesters a break. They have some legitimate beefs and they are expressing their constitutionally protected right of (peaceful) free speech. Only hostage takers make demands ('Sup Mitch McConnell?).