Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Back to Ohio: Why do the Roads in Central Ohio Suck so Badly?

There was a common joke I heard in my youth, that the state flower of Ohio was the orange construction barrel. Every spring, the barrels would spring up, complicating any work commute in every direction. When I moved to Las Vegas in the early nineties, I realized that it's not a geographic thing, particularly. For the entire two decades I lived in the Vegas valley, I don't remember a time when Interstate 15 didn't have construction somewhere along its stretch through town.

Upon my return to Ohio this year, I had another revelation. There are huge differences between these two places as to what's going on behind those barrels. In Las Vegas, if there is a choke point on a highway, they fix it. If there is too much traffic trying to join or exit a freeway ramp on a daily basis, they build new interchanges, either replacing the existing exits, or adding new ones at different intersections. Complicated pinch points yield astonishing changes, like fly-overs, superstreet intersections, criss-crossing (and high-flying) ramps, extending and expanding roads that were previously inadequate, access roads, express lanes, and other improvements. Yes, Vegas still has The Spaghetti Bowl, and the Rainbow Curve--nobody's perfect--but by-and-large, if a section of town experiences terrible traffic, NDOT goes to great lengths to find a solution, and usually a quick one.

Not in Ohio. Sure, there have been changes. During my 20 year absence, State Route 161 was rerouted and expanded (with the efforts of Limited owner, Les Wexner), I-670 was completed as something of an innerbelt from Downtown Columbus to the Airport (it peters out in the suburb of Gahanna). I'm sure there have been other improvement projects (I saw a novel interchange at Roberts Road and west I-270, for example), and roundabouts have sprung up in both logical and unnecessary locations. Roundabouts seem to be a prestige thing for some reason, even in Las Vegas. But there are a distressing number of congested areas that are absolutely inadequate, and were inadequate in 1990, 1980, 1970.

Many of the freeway exits and junctions, for example, are of the original design: cloverleafs. They force drivers to cross each other, often requiring not only cooperation with other drivers (yeah, right), but also snap decisions. One in particular, at I-270 and State Route 3, allows almost no time to complete the maneuver. It's been that way since it was built. Traffic jams abound, and need have no other cause beyond competing drivers trying to cross each other to exit and enter.

Getting off the freeway, things can be just as bad on surface streets. Traffic jams can happen anywhere, at any time, and have no obvious cause. I can't tell you how many times I've found myself driving on a major road, and having to make a snap decision, because my lane is coming to a sudden surprise end or "turn only." Attempting to drive about three miles down State Route 256 (a major road), I had to change lanes three times to continue south, and this occurred no matter which lane
you're travelling in. Going through the town of New Albany (Les Wexner's baby), there are sequential intersections where through travel requires shifting lanes twice, neither particularly intuitive. I find this all over the place, left lane, right line, or middle lane (if there is one). Even in prestigious areas like Grandview Heights.

And while I'm on a rant, I'll point out that this is a state of few legal U-turns, and many intersections with signs that say, "No turn on red, except curb lane." Both of these things cause traffic tie-ups, the former because it forces drivers to make snap decisions, and the latter because many Ohio drivers are clueless, and read the sign as simply "No turn on red." That's a problem that funding roads can't fix, I suppose. Many Ohioans can't properly yield either, whether at roundabouts (something that I admittedly had problems with at first), or on continuous turn lanes. People in Ohio are also permitted to talk on the phone while driving without the assistance of Bluetooth, which is a huge traffic issue, just from my own observations.

But because of these side-issues about the driving-challenged in Ohio, improved infrastructure is just that much more important. And it's not getting done. I just wonder why. Yes, it's expensive. But it's important. I'd also like to point out that in Las Vegas, we had no city tax, no state tax, and property tax that was about 1/3 the amount in central Ohio. With all of this extra cash at their disposal, where does the tax money go in Ohio? Sure, those orange barrels are out all over the place, so clearly a lot goes to fixing the existing roads after the harsh winter destruction every year.  But here we are in the middle of May, and every excursion out of my house in Reynoldsburg is like a driving obstacle course. So, even that isn't getting done at a very rapid clip.

It's a daily aggravation, for me. I can only assume that your average Ohioan has come to accept the status quo as "just the way things are." When stuck in a traffic jam on East Broad Street out in the relative boonies of Blacklick to Pataskala at 2pm on an odd Saturday, they must just shrug, and think, "it's always been this way." But it doesn't have to be! I've seen it done better! There are many things about my Vegas experience I could bitch about, but attention to infrastructure isn't one of them. Why does Ohio allow this woefully inadequate condition to go on indefinitely?

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

What Happens in Vegas No More Police at Traffic Accidents?

In a move that is sure to cause confusion, anger and maybe a "stand your ground" case or two, Las Vegas Metro police will no longer respond to car accidents without a significant injury involved. The move is in response to the failure of a proposal to raise the sales tax in order to pay for more police expenses. And I'm guessing it's a way to get that tax passed.

Because this is bound to be a disaster. For one thing, it's always been my understanding that you had to call the cops if you have a wreck, in order to properly fill out the insurance paperwork. No police report? The news release says we'll have to go to the DMV, and that sounds like such a treat.

Image from source, Las Vegas Sun
But what if the other guy is seriously at fault, and there's no cop there to prove it? What if the other guy refuses to show you his ID and skips out? What if he's drunk? I imagine there'll be a few months of insanity on the roads of Las Vegas, and then a civic outcry for more police.

[Excerpt]

Metro to quit responding to minor traffic accidents beginning March 3
 
The days of Metro Police responding to fender-benders come to an end next week. Capt. Mark Tavarez of Metro’s Traffic Bureau said at an early afternoon news conference that beginning March 3, patrol officers would stop responding to property-only accidents within Metro’s jurisdiction. . .

Read more at: Las Vegas Sun

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval Reaches Agreement to Tax Amazon.com

Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NV) from
LVRJ.com
Boy, does this one ever have me torn. On one hand, as a liberal, I can acknowledge that the untaxed nature of items for sale on the internet is hurting states (who are missing out on taxes), and is hurting brick-and-mortar businesses (who are being undersold). Taxing purchases like this seems fair. On the other hand, I'm a big online shopper for just about anything that has free or low shipping charges. Seriously, I got my 60" TV that way, a big electric roaster oven, just about all books, movies, music and printer inks. My local purchases have been reduced to groceries, and any item I just don't want to wait 2-5 days for. Amazon.com has become my primary retailer for things I don't get on eBay, essentially, including most Christmas purchases.

So, when this tax goes into effect, part of the benefit of going on Amazon will have been removed. I'm sure I'll comparison shop a little more, and may resort to eBay on pricier items. Or hey, I might even shop locally, if there isn't a price difference with tax. But hey, I really kind of feel like I've gotten a free ride up 'til now, so like I said, I'm torn.

The bigger question is, what do conservative Republicans think? I mean, this is essentially a huge new tax, levied by a Republican governor with aspirations to higher office. Isn't this a huge black mark? It'll be interesting to see if this haunts Sandoval.

[Excerpt]

Gov. Sandoval reaches sales tax deal with Amazon
 
Gov. Brian Sandoval and Internet sales giant Amazon announced an agreement Monday to allow the state to start collecting sales taxes on the company's Internet sales to Nevada customers beginning in 2014. In addition, Sandoval and Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy, said they will work together to induce Congress to pass a law allowing the states to collect sales taxes on all Internet purchases. . .

Read more at: Las Vegas Review-Journal

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

IRS To Crack Down on Bogus "Social Welfare" Tax Exempt Political Groups

Image from source, ThinkProgress
Good!

[Excerpt]

Treasury And IRS To Crack Down On Super PACs Masquerading As Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Groups
 
The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed guidelines on Tuesday that could force dark-money political groups like Crossroads GPS and the American Future Fund to spend less of their money on campaign advertising and other overt electioneering. If implemented, this guidance would clarify what actions by tax-exempt social welfare organizations are limited “candidate-related political activity” and what actions can count toward their principal purpose. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Friday, November 1, 2013

Source Behind Harry Reid's Claim on Romney's Taxes Revealed

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), from TPM
Back during the 2012 presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (one of my state's Senators) made a bit of news challenging GOP candidate Mitt Romney to release his tax records. Reid had an anonymous source that said Mitt hadn't actually had to pay taxes in years. But he wouldn't reveal his source (and, not incidentally, Mittens never released his tax records either). Many conservatives alleged that Reid was making it up. Looks like they were wrong.

[Excerpt]

Book: Huntsman Sr. Told Reid That Mitt Didn’t Pay Taxes For 10 Years
 
The word is finally out. The source of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) infamous claim during the 2012 presidential campaign that Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes in 10 years was Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of fellow GOP rival Jon Huntsman, according to a new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann called “Double Down. . ."

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Messin' With Texas: Un-Paving Roads Rather Than Raising Taxes

I still can't quite wrap my head around this. Big oil has a boom in Texas. Big Oil makes more profits than any other industry ever has in the history of man. Their trucks are tearing up the roads. Texas is having a hard time paying for the roads, so. . .they're un-paving them! Not raising taxes on the oil companies, or figuring out some other sort of pay-for-play arrangement.

Their unofficial slogan is "Don't Mess With Texas." Maybe that's because Texas is already a hot mess.

[Excerpt]

Texas Converts 80 Miles Of Paved Road To Gravel Thanks To Lack Of Funds

Finding that thanks to shortfalls the budget is not equipped to handle safety upgrades on paved roads, the Texas Department of Transportation began converting 80 miles of roads to gravel on Monday.
Texas DOT spokesman David Glessner told the Texas Tribune that a lack of funding meant its “only option to make [roads] safer is to turn them into gravel roads.” For safety reasons, some speed limits on the unpaved roads will also be lowered to 30 mph. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Friday, May 17, 2013

Lawrence O'Donnell Points Out (Again) The REAL IRS Scandal

I might be getting a little too repeaty with my Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell posts, but this subject bears repeating, and needs to be spread far and wide. The real IRS scandal is the fact that these Tea Party groups were accepted for their tax exempt status in the first place, not the fact that they were investigated (and should have been).



Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Real IRS Scandal

Yeah, no reason to look into these peoples' taxes. . .
I know I'm lefty, liberal, moonbat, but I'm having a difficult time finding the "scandal" in the IRS/Tea Party scandal. Let's see, in 2009--right after President Obama took office--a thousand "Tea Party" groups sprung up all over the country. Lots of them file for tax exempt status. Now, all of these groups have some variation of "tea party," "taxed enough already," "patriots," "freedom" and other co-opted right-wing buzzwords as names. They're on record as absolutely hating taxation. And they are obviously, overtly political. These tax exemptions are supposed to apply to primarily non-political organizations. Ipso facto, badda-bing, Bob's your uncle, AUDIT TIME. What's the problem?

The worry seems to be that the IRS was being partisan and not balanced. But was there an equal and opposite phenomenon going on, on the left at the time? Maybe the "occupy" movement, though that came later. But were they trying for the same status? Anyway, fine. If there were copious amounts of political groups on the left vying for the same status, and yet were ignored by the IRS? Make the scandal about that. But the focus on the tea party groups sounds completely legit on the surface to me. We need more information before jumping to conclusions.

Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell has focused in on the underlying problem at the root of this potential scandal: a change in the meaning of the word "exclusive" by the IRS, all the way back in 1959. It's worth a view even if you're a rightie, for the history lesson. Take a look.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


And, per usual, there is a blogger out there who does this better than me who goes by the nom de plume The Rude Pundit. If you think you have a better handle on this scandlette than I do, please read this (The IRS "Scandal" Isn't a Scandal, But It Will Get Annoying) and see if you still feel that way.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Do We Have a Deal? Obama Drops His Price for Boehner

Image from source, TPM.
Wait, I'm not sure "dropping his price" is quite accurate. Oh well, it's a decent headline. What actually happened is, the $250,000 tax hike is now the $400,000 tax hike. So everyone gets to keep the Bush tax cut on their first $400,000 in income, and then everything after that gets a new, higher rate. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that moving the goalposts was even necessary. The $250K number has been Obama's campaigning point for over four years. It polls well. So why cave to orange-faced, perpetually drunk (allegedly) John Boner Boehner? Ah, well. If it gets this stupid "fiscal cliff" business taken care of, whatever.

[Excerpt]

Obama Makes Boehner A New Offer
After meeting at the White House for 45 minutes on Monday, President Obama made House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) a new offer this evening, one that significantly bridges the gap between the two sides in hopes of reaching a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. . .


Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Mormon Church Owns Unregulated Guns Website?

EDITOR'S NOTE: When I get to writing, sometimes the words flow and go off on a tangent. And in the fast-pace of blogging,  up it goes on the blog, and then I get to wondering, "where did that come from?"  That's what happened here. I am one half of one of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in California, during the brief window in which it was legal. A primary reason that Proposition 8 was successful in stopping marriage equality, was the Mormon church. I am also an atheist, who has many times been irritated by the intrusion of religion into law. Hence the rant.

As for the veracity of the story I attached my rant to, I couldn't say. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is at the core of it, which lends it credence. But he could be barking up a wrong tree, who knows. So, without further ado, I do not disavow what I've written, but now you have the context, if it wasn't clear before. Ahem.

Thought I'd better add this tag, since it would seem
I had a few pent-up things to say!
ORIGINAL POST:

Mormons are weird. Don't take that personally, Mormons, I find all religions weird. But I think--what with LDS' very recent vintage, it is weirder still that it has bloomed into such a force to be reckoned with. I mean, with Christianity, Judaism, Islam and others, the religions are so old, few of their claims can be fact-checked. The religions have to be taken almost entirely on faith. But there's stuff in the Book of Mormon that can be checked out, with history books and with common sense. There are entire websites devoted to Mormon debunkery, so I'll not delve further into that here. I'm just sayin'.

After the South Park episode, and the broadway hit, The Book of Mormon by the same guys, I think you'd find a lot of people who find Mormonism really kind of nutty, and in wonder of  the fact that there are converts. How do you sell such a crazy story? By leaving the nutty stuff out, most likely.
I doubt those adorable missionaries spend much time on posthumous baptism, magical undergarments, end-of-days clearing houses, celestial marriage or Kolob in their spiels.

Secrecy is very big in the Mormon church, particularly with outsiders. With their ten percent tithing requirement, the Mormon church is also very, very rich. They can afford to pump money into efforts to defeat and/or prevent marriage equality for one, which is how they got on my bad side.

When a church is so publicly (with a layer of secrecy, naturally) politically active, I've got to ask: why are they tax exempt? Yes, the Constitution protects religious freedom (and freedom from religion, don't forget), but where does it say that they have the right to unlimited funds, tax free? And now they're supposedly selling unregulated guns? They need to be investigated, not just for this, but for any other potentially illegal dealings. They need their tax exempt status revoked, or at least need to be warned that further political--and illegal--activity be ceased instead, either/or.

I know that it is impolitic to criticize religion unless it is Islam and/or Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. But I don't see what makes any religion so special. Anybody can invent a religion, and sell it to rubes. Joseph Smith, for instance. L. Ron Hubbard for another, but that's a whole different (but very similar) story.

[Excerpt]


Michael Bloomberg, on the case. Image from source.
Mormon Church 'owns unregulated gun sale website' 

KSL.com was criticised by the Mayor's office for running classified adverts which allow individuals to buy and sell handguns and other firearms without proper background checks and no questions asked.
The site is owned by Deseret Media, the for-profit arm of the Church of the Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormons – which has come to prominence recently as a result of the presidential run of member Mitt Romney. . .

Read ore at: The Telegraph

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

President Obama on The Late Show with David Letterman

Here's one of the biggest differences I notice between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney. . . While President Obama is measured and generous in his language, even to his opponent, Romney is more apt to pounce like a dog on a bone. Or, maybe like a robotic dog. Or an alien trying to assume the form of a dog? I don't know, but Obama comes off ten times classier, and much more human.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Romney's 47% Are NOT All Obama Voters

Just for your edification, should you be sympathizing with Mitt Romney's pickle over insulting almost half the country: the 47% of citizens who do not pay federal income tax is not necessarily a monolithic Obama bloc. Take a look at the map below. Tell me how many of the states in red voted for Obama in the last election. I'll wait. . .

Image from Tax Foundation

If you're wondering, the answer is two, New Mexico and Florida, the latter being a perpetual swing-state. The rest of them were McCain/Palin country. And let's not forget that the 47% that Romney spoke of included retirees, disabled veterans and many others who are not just slackers on the government dole. To say that they are is insulting and over-simplistic to say the very least.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Posted Without Comment: Mitt Romney's Press Conference

OK, Mitt, What About That 47% of America?

UPDATED: Just to mention. . .is this what Willard wants to be talking about right now? How much taxes people pay? We don't even know what he paid himself. . .

I get irritated when I hear that 47% figure batted around, that same 47% that Mitt Romney has insulted by saying they are people "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." Usually, the figure is used by people who follow the number by saying those people "don't pay taxes."
[Story continues below]




Of course, virtually everyone pays taxes. Not everyone ends up paying federal income tax, but that is often glossed over. But it is even more dishonest than that, when you break down that 47%. Just who are we talking about there? Does anyone really believe that nearly fully half of Americans are lazy layabouts, just waiting for their gubment check? I know that Republicans do not do nuance, but it really isn't that difficult. And if you'll read through the excerpted article below, you will see that this is one more place where Mitt is on both sides of the issue.

[Excerpt]

Mitt Romney versus the 47 percent

. . .Let’s set aside the question of whether this is what Mitt Romney really believes deep down in his heart. Maybe this is what he thinks. Or maybe he just thought it was a good line to buck up jittery donors. What we can say is that the last part is wrong. There is no fair accounting in which 47 percent of Americans take no “personal responsibility and care for their lives.” Take this simple breakdown from the Tax Policy Center of what households paid in taxes in 2011. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Friday, August 17, 2012

Obama Team Offers Romney Deal on Tax Return Info; Rebuffed

Image from HuffPo.


It is becoming increasingly clear that whatever would be revealed in Mitt Romney's past tax returns would be more damaging for his campaign, than the stonewalling on the issue is. I'm beginning to wonder if the information contained in the returns wouldn't be catastrophic to Romney's chances; so bad that it effectively ends his campaign.

If not, what in the world is the reasoning for continuing to insist--often inelegantly, hello Mrs. Romney--that we people have seen enough? Willard's dad, George Romney said,
"Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much, he argued. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul." [Source]
Has Romney even tried to refute that, or the precedent that his own father started? I know that he desperately wants to change the subject, and portray the request itself as not serious and beside the point. But it should be clear to him by now that the issue isn't going away. And for heaven's sake, he had to know this would come up, after his previous runs for office. If the issue was so bad, why did he even run for president, if he didn't have a ready-to-go spin on the subject? Isn't this kind of like John Edwards continuing to run for President, whilst having an extramarital affair that would surely have disqualified him? And Romney is still refusing, even offered a much less revealing disclosure. What is Romney hiding?

[Excerpt]

Obama Campaign Wants Romney To Release 5 Years Of Tax Returns

With the spotlight back on Mitt Romney's tax returns, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina reached out to the Romney campaign on Friday pledging a deal: If Romney releases five more years of tax returns, the Obama campaign will no longer criticize the presumptive GOP presidential nominee for his refusal to disclose more information. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Rachel Maddow Asks Mitt Romney 5 Questions

I reference The Rachel Maddow Show frequently, I know. But this is a perfect clip to showcase for two reasons: 1) There is no preamble or lead-in, Rachel gets right to it; and 2) Rachel asks 5 pointed, direct questions that Mitt Romney has so far avoided answering. And for bonus points, a couple of them are not questions you usually hear from mainstream cable news. We're waiting for your response, Mr. Romney!


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Friday, July 20, 2012

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, Retroactive Retirement and Taxes

Laugh it off, Mitt! Image from source.
On Friday, I started noticing some chop-licking going on in left-wing world. "This could be big," was the general consensus, though everyone seemed to be holding back a bit. Nobody wants to do a big schadenfreude dance, and then have the rug pulled out from under them. I mean, we saw what happened when FOX "News" mistakenly said that "Obamacare" had been declared un-Constitutional, and right-wing world had egg on its face after celebrating too quickly. Yeah, that shit's embarrassing.

But the rub is, Mitt Romney has been saying forever that he quit Bain Capital--the outsourcing, evil, money-grubbing Death Star of capitalism--in 1999. He even told the SEC that. But it came to light he was President, CEO and 100% owner of the place! All the way to what, 2002? That would be just possibly Mitt having a senior moment (repeatedly). But what about the stuff Bain did after '99 that Mitt was trying to dodge? All that shipping jobs overseas business. The making money off of abortion business. Yeah. It doesn't look good. I'm not ready for my schadenfreude dance just yet. But it was entertaining watching the righties spin on the Sunday shows yesterday. And I'm thinking of popping some corn. . .

[Excerpt]


Romney’s Tax Man Cometh

Poor, poor Mitt. He and his dancing horse have been having a tough go of it lately. Turns out he may (or may not!) have lied to the SEC about the good times he had at Bain capital between 1999 and 2002, presiding over the disposal of dead fetuses unborn babies before retroactively retiring. Then a bunch of conservatives went on the teevee and demanded that he release more than two years’ of tax returns. . .

Read more at: Wonkette
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...