Flexible Reality
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Remember the Wall of Shame? Where do these belong on that wall? Adelphia, Andersen Consulting, Enron, Global Crossing, Imclone, Qwest, Tyco, Wall Street, WorldCom.
In the film: Wall Street, Michael Douglas's character said: "Greed is Good"..., yeah, sure it is for the 1%'ers; but everyone else suffers. We knew that our mutual fund accounts had essentially become static over the past few years. Accounts we had setup in 1996-1997 have a present value almost exactly equal to what we paid in, excluding their diminished post-inflation actual value. All the volatility with no appreciation. We probably would have been better to just leave the money in certificates of deposit. So, it's no surprise to now read about Spitzer's actions against several mutual funds. If all this "take care of the big guys" financial shenanigans continues unabated, we will be sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Without faith and trust in America's financial markets, the Euro could become the defacto international currency, and the corporate crooks who made it happen will watch as our once mighty dollar sucks wind.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Israeli General has a few words for the Sharon Government:
Our strategy helps the terrorists - army chief warns Sharon
Fierce rebuke exposes rift between military and government
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Friday October 31, 2003
The Guardian
Israel's army chief has exposed deep divisions between the military and Ariel Sharon by branding the government's hardline treatment of Palestinian civilians counter-productive and saying that the policy intensifies hatred and strengthens the "terror organisations".
Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon also told Israeli journalists in an off-the-record briefing that the army was opposed to the route of the "security fence" through the West Bank. The government also contributed to the fall of the former Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, by offering only "stingy" support for his attempts to end the conflict, he said.
Gen Ya'alon had apparently hoped his anonymous criticisms would strengthen the army's voice, which has been subordinated to the views of the intelligence services in shaping policy. But the comments were so devastating that he was swiftly revealed as the source. The statements - which a close associate characterised to the Israeli press as warning that the country was "on the verge of a catastrophe" - will also reinforce a growing perception among the public that Mr Sharon is unable to deliver the peace with security he promised when he came to office nearly three years ago.
The criticism is made all the more searing because Gen Ya'alon is not known for being soft on the Palestinians. As deputy chief of staff, he called the latest conflict the second stage of Israel's independence war. The general warned that the continued curfews, reoccupation of towns and severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, combined with the economic crisis they have caused, were increasing the threat to Israel's security.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest," Gen Ya'alon said. "It increases hatred for Israel and strengthens the terror organisations."
Earlier this week, army commanders in the West Bank told the military administration in the occupied territories that Palestinians had reached new depths of despair, which was fuelling a hatred for Israeli that had little to do with the propaganda so often blamed by the government. "There is no hope, no expectations for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, nor in Bethlehem and Jericho," said Gen Ya'alon.
The commanders warned that the situation was strengthening Hamas, a view the Israeli intelligence services agreed with. But while the army sees the solution as easing most oppressive elements of occupation, the Shin Bet argues that rising support for Islamist groups is a reason to keep the clampdown in place. This is the preferred option of the defence minister and Gen Ya'alon's predecessor as army chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz. Mr Sharon and Mr Mofaz were reportedly furious at the general's statements and initially demanded that he retract them or resign. But the political establishment apparently decided it would be better to deride Gen Ya'alon.
Anonymous sources in the prime minister's office were quoted in the Israeli press complaining that the army chief was trying to blame the politicians for the military's failures. But army radio reported yesterday that the foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, agreed that there needs to be a substantial easing of restrictions on the Palestinian population. The deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was also reported to have backed the general's view.
Gen Ya'alon also waded into one of the most contentious issues of the day by saying the army had recommended a less controversial route for the steel and concrete "security fence" through the West Bank. He said the military had warned that the fence, which digs deep into Palestinian territory, caging some towns and villages and cutting farmers off from their land, will make the lives of some Palestinians "unbearable" and require too many soldiers to guard it.
Further questions were raised yesterday after the chairman of parliament's defence budget committee revealed that the cost of the fence could triple to �1.3bn - or 3% of the national budget - if Mr Sharon fulfils his plan for the fence to run around Jewish settlements and the length of the Jordan valley so that it encircles the bulk of the Palestinian population. In response to questions about Gen Ya'alon's comments, the army's chief spokeswoman, Brigadier General Ruth Yaron, said they reflected a debate within the military. "No uniformed officer has expressed criticism of the government. The articles reflect fundamental deliberations within the army, in light of a complex reality," she said.
Oh goodie, another Email worm: MIMAIL unleached today propagates inside a zip file usually called: PHOTOS.ZIP
MiMail works in a manner similar to SOBIG; but it is not as aggressive or elegant. Still, wanna bet that lots of dweebs will open the zipfile to look at photos, especially if they might be... ta-ta.. {intended for adults}. Unknown if the viri scanners can pick it up yet as it was released late Friday PM.
Microsoft wants to make programming easier with the next iteration of their Windows OS, code named: Longhorn. C++ programmers have nothing to worry about; but if you make your coins with VB, it's probably better that you buy your new Bimmer now. But WTH, if you're not doing Linux extended by 06 you'll be toast anyway.
After reading about the Terri Schiavo episode in Florida, or remembering the Karen Quinlan case from a few years ago, it might be useful for those so oriented to make a "Durable Power of Attorney" for health care, and a "Living Will". You can obtain the "Five Wishes" program which is valid in 35 States, or for Georgia residents, the forms are available here.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Krugman on the surprising 7.2% Quarter. It does appear that sending out several million tax refund checks, several hundred billion spent on defense, and several hundred billion of tax credit to business moved the economy; but as Krugman points out...what's next?
Senate Panel Demands White House Hand Over Papers on Iraq Arms by Friday
By DOUGLAS JEHL
NY Times
Published: October 31, 2003
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — The Senate Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, demanded Thursday that the White House "must lift" its objections and hand over to the panel documents related to intelligence about Iraq and its illicit weapons before the war. The panel set a deadline of noon Friday for compliance by the White House, the same as it has set for the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the Pentagon to provide documents and schedule interviews that the committee has been seeking for months.
The committee — headed by Senators Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia — is trying to determine how the Bush administration reached its conclusions about Iraq's suspected stocks of chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The committee's demand reflects a new impatience on the part of the panel and its staff, who have said some of their previous requests have gone unanswered since July. The committee has not said what it will do if the Friday deadline is not met.
The Internet in the UK circa Fall 2003:
"The net and broadband are experience technologies," Professor William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute told the Broadband Stakeholder Group conference in London. "There is a need to get people using it in order to overcome fear of it," he added. But many people in the UK are still making the "digital choice" not to go online at all, said Professor William Dutton. Recent research by the Oxford Internet Institute showed that 59% of the UK had access to the net. Of those, only 11% had broadband while 24% were not thinking of hooking up to broadband at all.
Last Update with New Links to The Shils Report: 10/22/99
2/7/97 Shils Report - Impact of Mega-Retail Discount Chains on American Small Businesses
Chapter X: Conclusions and Recommendations
"The writer has devoted almost three years to this study. He has sent out approximately 6,000 questionnaires to small retailers asking their views on strategies for survival in the face of the formidable gains of the mega-retail discount chains. The questionnaire returns have been analyzed statistically and data has presented a picture of fear, sadness and disillusionment about the chance for small retailers to survive the impact of the mass discounters.
Much of the resentment was focused on redevelopment agency plans in many states where tax funds have been made available to the mega-retailers to pay for capital outlay and debt service for these "Big Boxes" which have destroyed the viability of the "Main Street" merchant, while denying the small business merchant the use of development funds to end center city blight. This type of subsidy for the mega-retail discount chains has been described as "corporate welfare." In many instances the retention of sales taxes for 10-15 years has deprived school and other local governments of needed revenues. It is clear that there is only so much demand in a given area, and where a supercenter opens, the result is often the closing of the smaller competitors. While the chain retains the sales taxes, the ultimate closure of the small retailers eliminates a traditional flow of revenue to the schools, counties and state governments.
How Could This Happen?
Suppose a Kmart or a Target was an anchor store opening in the mall 5-10 years before. The square footage of the store ranged from 30,000 to 60,000 feet. Suppose several years later a Supercenter, such as Wal-Mart, with perhaps 200,000 plus square feet were to be constructed one-half mile away, soon, the auto traffic in the older mall lessened. The Target or Kmart with only 45,000 sq. feet closed and surrendered. The anchor store then remained vacant and the decline of the mall accelerated. Throughout the United States, formerly prosperous malls or strip centers have given up. The areas have become desolate and look abandoned and the customers depart for the newest supercenters and their parking areas.
It is reasonable to assume that since Wal-Mart does present strong direct competition and a major challenge to many of the current mall tenants, that many of these tenants may not continue in business. The argument or assumption that Wal-Mart will increase traffic must be questioned. The reverse is more likely to be true. A consumer, who traditionally shops at the mall in some of the smaller businesses or chains may be now more inclined to visit Wal-Mart while in the mall. However, the traditional Wal-Mart shoppers will not leave the store to see what else is available. They are drawn to Wal-Mart in the first place because their needs are met from a selection and price standpoint. Therefore, those traditional mall stores offering the same or similar merchandise as Wal-Mart will lose traffic and eventually close. Their closing may have a ripple effect on other non-competing mall stores as the "traffic" flow weakens.
The new discount stores were in many cases funded by redevelopment funds that were denied to "Main Street" merchants struggling to survive the exodus from downtown. The economic vitality of the downtown oozed out as the highway interchanges were the place to go. As the downtown businesses closed, there was a desecration of civic and cultural life affecting families, education, crime and violence. The new mega-store required municipal and state investments in roads, water and sewer lines, police and fire protection and other governmental services. As one travels through the towns and cities of America, it is easy to note negative change with abandoned buildings, unsightly parks, declining majesty of public buildings and general malaise. Interviews with surviving owners of retail stores disclose a hopelessness. They say "the traffic is gone"; the "future is bleak" --- "I may have to close."
In the four states the author visited, he saw numerous instances of community groups fighting supercenter sprawl. Often they resented the financial packages (RDA) funds offered to developers and chains. They feared the increase in pollution and traffic congestion that would affect school crossings. They deplored a lack of downtown planning that permitted illogical zoning changes. They feared the new chain stores would not add to the size of the consumer market -- but only cause commercial glut until the small retailer was eliminated. They were concerned about the negative impact upon the environment as well as the cultural, scenic, fiscal and economic impacts.
Development that exceeds a community's ability to absorb it will ultimately result in abandonment of prior and public investments -- and possibly the new supercenter will also close as the joblessness in the town increases. Lastly, the major discount chain may close because of losses in the town's purchasing power. The chain then opens in the next county, leaving the town desolate and abandoned. This is more and more becoming true in the United States as new large chains open stores not realizing the demographics and other limits of the market.
Are Large Chains Doomed as Well as Small Stores in the Discount Race?
A 1994 study co-authored by David T. Kresge of Dun and Bradstreet Information Services and retail consultant Gary A. Wright of Denver stated: "Despite predictions that small retailers are doomed, specialty stores are thriving in some important niches, says a new study of retailing. In those retail sectors where personal service, location or expertise are valued such as the women's fashion, accessories and gifts, smaller retailers are doing very well, said co-authors Kresge and Wright."4
In the same Philadelphia Inquirer article the opposite position was taken by a Wall Street investment expert following the retail chain picture: "Senior retail analyst Walter Loeb of Loeb and Associates says the larger firms such as Wal-Mart are gaining increasing sway, with enormous control over pricing, the competitive environment and suppliers." "When Wal-Mart is growing at 18-20 percent a year with the (economy) growing only about 3 percent, somebody is giving up business," he added." The study discussed in the article recommended personalized service as means by which small retailers could survive. On the other hand, the authors warned that powerful chains such as Home Depot were also offering personalized service.
The future of the small retailer is growing desperate, despite recommendations about personalized service, unique product differentiation, and a move from the destroyed "Main Street" of America to more appropriate locations. How can those small retailers, with less than a million in sales, finance a lease termination and the expense of a move to a more desirable location? The proof of the pudding that the major discounters will sooner or later eliminate most of the small retailers is the fact that even the medium size firms are in trouble.
Susan Dentzer in a May 1995 article in US News & World Report, entitled "Death of the Middleman?" points out the growing centralization of power between manufacturers, suppliers and discount retailers. As was stated many times in this study, small retailers have lost the wholesalers that sold to them. Many now buy from Sam's Clubs and other club stores. Dintzer states:7 Yes, the middleman is an endangered species because of the EDI hookups between manufacturers and large discounters. But here again, the small retailers may become a thing of the past, lacking funds and information to survive.
Retailing in Transition
In a study several years ago, the following forecast was provided: "By the end of this decade, more than half of today's retailers will be out of business." They explained: "there is too much retail space for the market, too much "copy cat" sameness among retailers, and far too much leverage on the books. These conditions leave no room for marginal performers." They further predicted: "that by the end of the century, some lines of trade will virtually be owned' by only four or five major players."10 It now appears that this prediction made in 1990, is being corroborated by the retailing change of power in the mid-nineties.
In retailing, analysts say, discount is no longer synonymous with success. "The days are gone when a discounter could be unique or alone in any market," says Allan L. Pennington, a Chicago retail consultant with McMillan/Doolittle. "It's become a difficult business to be in." Analysts trace the trend to a redrawing of battle lines. Until recently, discounters of every stripe sought to steal customers from full-price independent, mass merchants such as J.C. Penney Co. and department stores such as R.H. Macy & Co. But the expansion into nearly every market of the so-called Big Three -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Kmart Corp. and Dayton Hudson Corp's Target chain -- has pitted discounter against discounter in a competition that favors size. Wal-Mart and Target, in, particular are thriving. "The smaller chains are getting caught in a battle between the Bigs." says Linda Kristiansen, a New York retail analyst with Wertheim Schroder.16
The Role of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
The author has endeavored to assess the contributions of the mega-retail discount chains as well as the negative implications of their unprecedented growth.
It's important at this time as the writer comes to the end of his study to once again review the role of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the challenge it sets forth to governments, citizens, planners, developers and local and national economists and sociologists.
The Trust sees the mega-retail discount chains as inputting such negatives as:
1. Sapping the economic vitality of downtowns and "Main Street" by shifting the retail center of gravity out to highway interchanges on the edge of town.
2. Displacing existing businesses, especially independently owned small businesses that contribute significantly to local civic life, by building stores vastly out of scale with town's ability to absorb them.
3. Setting the stage for higher property and state income taxes by creating developments that are costly to serve and require new roads, water and sewer lines, police protection and other public services.
4. Causing the waste or abandonment of previous public and private investments in existing buildings, streets, parks and other community assets.
5. Homogenizing America by building stores that have no relation to their surroundings.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation asks the mega-retail discount chains to answer the following challenge:
"Can the consumer benefits provided by the superstore be achieved only through the creation of more urban sprawl and all the sprawl brings: traffic congestion, automobile dependence, air pollution, dispirited or dead downtowns, despoiled country sides and weakened community ties? Or could some of the benefits be provided without so much damage to the environment and local communities? We think these are questions that should be asked."19
The Trust also poses an equally important challenge to the many communities facing the invasion of the super "boxes:
"And communities have choices. They can encourage or discourage certain types of development. If a community doesn't want superstore sprawl, it can take steps to prevent it. If a community wants a superstore, it faces a whole host of other questions relating to whether the store comes in on the communities terms. Where should the store be located? How big should it be? How much new retail space can the local economy absorb without suffering fiscal and economic impacts created by a commercial glut? Can the store be designed to help preserve the communities livability and attractiveness? How can the store minimize negative environmental, cultural, scenic, fiscal and economic effects? Above all, what is the long term impact of the decision?"19
Supercenters and Comparative Labor Costs
A major advantage for Wal-Mart's Supercenter, generally, is its lower labor costs as compared to both the unionized and non-unionized supermarkets. Wal-Mart is presently non-union. Kroger, the dominant supermarket chain, is unionized; nevertheless, it, unlike many supermarkets, continues to be strongly managed, effective and highly profitable. Wal-Mart's low labor costs, high productivity and control of its managerial and inventory processes have weakened not only Kmart, but many regional discount chains as well as supermarkets.
The American food industry is the finest in the world. Its distribution of goods, and quality of service are the shining example world wide. Its products, from produce to paper towels, are available night and day for everyone's convenience. Primary locations make shopping easily accessible for all concerned customers. Different types of stores service all the needs of customers culturally, aesthetically, and most importantly, economically. And now, this industry is in jeopardy.
For example, in Southern California, 90% of the market share in the food industry is under a collective bargaining agreement. Labor contracts between the United Food and Commercial Workers and food employers such as Ralphs, Food-4-Less, Hughes, Vons, Albertsons and Luckys have been negotiated through collective bargaining over the past several decades. The end result of these deliberations, as one might expect, has been a livable wage plus important benefits. Here the community is truly the beneficiary with healthy, independent tax paying residents who contribute to the tax base rather than drain it. A full-time wage earner working at Ralphs, paid at top scale, will earn a more than livable salary with health costs and dental coverage paid additionally.
Wal-Mart and Other Mega-Retail Discount Chains Enter the Food Industry in a Most Powerful Way
In the near future Wal-Mart will probably enter the food business in California and several other states and what may be at stake will be the additional loss of many quality high paying jobs now found in supermarkets. Wal-Mart's increasing assimilation into the food industry is apparently motivated by the drive to increase total retail sales. According to company statements, total retail sales should increase some 30% due to the synergies established at combination stores.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that Wal-Mart might use food as a loss leader in order to increase store traffic. There will be a positive transfer effect in the sale of general merchandise by having more visitors to the store, particularly if the sales of food are in the "loss leader" category. The impact that this will have on the food industry will parallel the effect it has had on the traditional retail industry. The problems created for employees within the traditional food industry could be nothing short of catastrophic. Supermarkets work on very thin margins, and their shrinking market share resulting from the combination of cheap labor and low prices will have murderous impact on the traditional food stores, large or small. The fallout could be compared to that of GM, Chrysler and Ford; not in overall job loss, but in weekly earnings, while company paid health benefits and retirement plans now prevalent in supermarkets might disappear. The shift in health benefits costs will go directly to the taxpayer while desperate worker who can't get jobs and retirees without pension funds may be adversely impacted and may have to be taken care of by federal, local and state governments. With a Social Security system already in jeopardy, increased drains will only shorten its lifespan. The elderly will certainly become more dependent on government subsidies as the shrinking "middle" will be further demonstrated.
The Supercenter's impact on the food industry will not be transparent to the causal observer. The entry of mega-retail discount chains like Wal-Mart, Kmart and Target into the food business is to increase their retail sales possibly by as much as an estimated 30% - in the case of Wal-Mart. However, there will be a further negative impact upon the local, state and federal economies as jobs go from full time to part-time and as wages drop and fringe benefits disappear.
Small retailers anxious to survive do not have the relative financial ability to compete with the mega-discount chains in advertising, promotion, public relations or radio and television. They rely on the small business techniques replete with flyers, leaflets, brochures, using the yellow pages of the telephone book and the local newspaper. This, despite the fact that many proponents for the mega-retail discount chain movement believe that small retailers can survive by employing specialization, improved marketing, utilization of information and computerized systems and other MBA driven techniques.
When one mixes the anger of not having adequate and free downtown parking with the tax abatements and other grants provided the large chains -- yet generally denied to rehabilitate downtown businesses -- the reason for the anger comes through loud and clear. The customer base of the retail respondents, described in Chapter III, depends greatly on highways and parking. Naturally the major chains locating outside of "Main Street" have the advantage of parking lots; ease of access; freedom from parking meters and downtown traffic congestion. Added to that, the fear of crime and violence in downtown evening shopping creates major disadvantages for the small "Main Street" retailer.
The State of Mind of the Small Retailer in America; His Fears and Concerns about Survival
One cannot argue with time honored principles taught at the nation's illustrious business schools, i.e., Wharton, Harvard, Stanford - but these schools prescriptions are far away from the financial constraints of small businesses. Those principles being such as "satisfy your customers"; "study the success of others"; "gather and analyze management information regularly"; "sharpen your marketing skills"; "increase the customers perception of value"; "position your business uniquely"; "eliminate waste"; "find something to improve every day," for example, the Kaizen, Japanese method of incremental improvement; "embrace change with a positive attitude"; and pull the trigger and start the battle."
The writer has visited many strip centers, "Main Streets" and malls, in number of states and has interviewed a number of valiant survivors. In Part II of Chapter IV, the reader certainly has to recognize the discouragement and disillusionment of the respondent retailers about the end of their "American Dream."
Taylor and Archer, while truly attempting to encourage small retailers to survive, nevertheless did recognize the present devastation going on in malls, strip centers and the former "Main Streets" of middle America. Furthermore, it is easy to see that observers are shocked by the decline and elimination of most small retail stores in the ethnic and minority enclaves of our very large cities in the East, Midwest and the West. The elimination of small retail stores in the neighborhoods results in job loss and contributes to the ultimate conversion of a formerly socially stable neighborhood into a ghetto, beset by violence, crimes, drugs and an underground economy.
An End to "Corporate Welfare" - Recommendations to Congress for Federal Legislation to Combat and Restrict "Big Box" Abuses
The following recommendations set forth in Chapter VIII, hopefully would restrict "Big Box" abuses by mega-retail discount chains, developers and redevelopment authorities operating under existing state redevelopment laws by taking away state and local tax giveaways and providing a vehicle for Congressional Hearings.
The idea is to attach strings to federal monies given states and localities: for example, such strings are often attached to highway monies. This would make sense here because these "Big Box" stores create additional burdens on federal highways as they are often built in areas accessible only by federal highway.
The legislation would say that highway money would be reduced to any state which allowed these stores to go up in any of the following circumstances:
(1) If the development received state or local tax incentives;
(2) If it was within x miles of a federal highway;
(3) If the developer/retailer did not pay the government for the full social costs of building such a store (not just for repairing highways more often, but also cleanup of air pollution) (a study to determine those costs should be required); or
(4) if a required "small business impact report" showed existing small businesses would be injured significantly.
Ideas for titles such as Small Business Survival Act; Retail Overdevelopment Act; Tax Financing Restraint Act (or any combination of these).
Further since the Internal Revenue Code is filled with provisions which aid, help or restrict the activities of certain industries, it is a natural place to consider curtailing the redevelopment agency, developers and "Big Box" abuses.
The idea might be to impose an excise or penalty tax on any state or local tax giveaways these "Big Boxes" wangle out of state and local government. The legislation possibly could apply only to retailers with an income over x billion dollars or a minimum of square foot. Our logic is this: The federal agencies and Congress are the only people who can stop the states and cities from cannibalizing each other as each gives away more and more in the form of tax breaks to win these mega-retail discount stores, only to rob their neighboring town or state of tax revenues (and jobs) from the existing retailers.
Only states or the federal government can step in to stop the current warfare; warfare which makes local governments more dependent on Washington D.C. No new jobs are created, and because the mega-retail chains pay their employees less and kill jobs at other retailers, they cause the federal government to receive less in income taxes. This should certainly interest Congress and the U.S. Treasury Department.
It is also obvious that there are incidental costs to the federal government for "Big Box" store development. They tend to expand near interstate highways, adding additional traffic which certainly costs the federal government more.
The mega-retail discount chains generally don't provide health insurance to employees, adding these people to the governments' burden. These chains are quite profitable, so an excise tax would not put them out of business.
Further, the environmentalists and preservationists should see the need to reduce the tax incentives for "Big Box" development. Finally, those in favor of reducing the federal deficit should be eager to embrace new sources of revenue.
Greg LeRoy, previously cited in Chapter VII, made it very clear that the state and federal governments have been wasting large sums on "corporate welfare" for enormously powerful and rich retail corporations. Whether it is a tax abatement or the right to retain sales tax revenues to pay for capital outlay or debt service; these are funds, which based upon earlier objectives, should have been applied in great part to rehabilitation of the "Main Streets" of the United States. Further, as Greg LeRoy pointed out, the grants help build structures which are often abandoned while the companies receiving the financial assistance move elsewhere.
The Need to Combat Urban Sprawl (The Work of the National Trust for Historic Preservation)
It is clear that the cities and towns of America, are gradually succumbing to urban sprawl. Moreover as described in many places in this study, the same type of sprawl is taking place in malls and strip centers away from the downtown areas. All of the abandonments of stores that were a delight to see ten years ago have taken place in great part due to the restless mobility of such competing giants as Kmart, Target, Wal-Mart and other mega-retail discount chains, as they feverishly move from area to area building larger and larger superboxes in a desire to kill off their competition. Soon the nation will appear to be scenes of desecrated malls looking like ravaged cemeteries, abandoned, looted, boarded up and loaded with graffiti.
The following long term strategy for combating sprawl may be found in the work of the National Trust for Historic Preservation released in 1994.33
"One of the best long term strategies for combating sprawl is to revitalize the downtown, the community's traditional center of commercial, cultural, and social activity. Making downtown "the place to be" helps to attract businesses, shoppers, and appropriate development to Main Street'." "Sometimes a downtown's problems seem overwhelming to local citizens. By flooding the community with more commercial space than can reasonably be supported and by diluting the downtown's economic vitality, sprawl can add to those problems. Yet downtown's problems are not insurmountable. Rebuilding the historic commercial district's economic strength simply requires persistence, collaboration, and a clear vision of what you hope to achieve."
"By identifying the downtown's major problems, then breaking large tasks down into smaller, achievable steps that gradually bring about positive, incremental change, a community can restore the downtown's economic vitality and make downtown, an exciting place to shop, conduct business, dine, live, and visit."
A Successful Downtown Revitalization Program Will Usually Have These Characteristics
1. A clear focus on a historic or traditional commercial district (either a downtown or a neighborhood commercial district).
2. Comprehensive and coordinated design, promotion, organization and economic development activities.
3. Strong support from both public and private sectors.
4. Broad-based community involvement and support.
5. A strong historic preservation ethic and a commitment to preserve the district's historic commercial buildings.
6. Willingness to take risks and try new approaches.
7. Trained, professional staff, whose primary function is to coordinate the activities of committed volunteers.
8. An active and effective board of directors and committees.
9. An evolving track record of individual and overall successes in preservation-based commercial revitalization.
10. Ongoing contact, sharing information and affiliation with other local, state and national preservation-based commercial revitalization programs, through correspondence, memberships, volunteer service and conferences.34
The National Historic Preservation Trust Tells Communities, How Should You Get Started?
In their publication, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, pulls on successful strategies in combating Superstore sprawl and offers the following advice on methods communities can use:
"Publicize the issue. Talk with community leaders. Hold a community meeting. Put together a slide show illustrating the successes other communities have had in revitalizing their downtowns, and show this to civic groups, school classes, local businesses and others. Ask the local newspaper to write a series of articles about the downtown and its revitalizing efforts."
"Recruit participants. The downtown program must involve groups and individuals throughout the community in order to be successful. Main Street revitalization requires the cooperation and commitment of a broad-based coalition of public and private sector groups: Business; civic groups; local government; financial institutions; the chamber of commerce; consumers; and many others. It also involves mobilizing a large number of volunteers to implement activities."
"Form an organization. Sometimes an existing organization or institution can take on the downtown revitalization initiative. It is usually more effective, though, to create a new organization that focuses exclusively on the revitalization process and that is unhampered by an existing reputation or by the expectations and particular interest of existing members. The new organization should include broad-based community representation."
"Identify barriers to downtown development. Ultimately, it should be as easy for a new business to locate downtown as it is to locate out on the strip. Examine your community's planning and land-use policies, financial programs, building codes, and other tools to see if there are regulatory or financial incentives that encourage sprawl instead of downtown development. List other problems affecting the downtown as well."
"Develop a realistic, incremental work plan. Articulate what the community wants the downtown to achieve. Develop a written mission statement and three or four major goals. Then identify some high-priority, but achievable activities the organization can do to meet these goals. In the early years try to include highly visible physical improvements and promotional events. Remember that you can't tackle all the downtown's problems in one year. Some of the problems may take years to overcome. Take one step at a time."
"Measure your progress. Keep track of the amount of money invested in physical improvements and of the number of new jobs created and new businesses that open. Track the downtown's vacancy rate. Count the number of people who take part in promotional activities. Ask downtown businesses to let you know if their sales are increasing. Publicize the progress the downtown revitalization is achieving."
"Be persistent. Downtown revitalization doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual, incremental process. As your organization succeeds in mobilizing resources to tackle small problems, it will strengthen its capacity to confront bigger challenges."35
Key Actions in Fighting Sprawl
The National Trust for Historic Preservation advises community groups as follows; "Don't let anyone tell you that sprawl is inevitable...The biggest enemy is a sense of hopelessness."36
Small businesses must stress the idea that fighting sprawl or rebuilding the "Main Street" is anti-competitive. The superstores spend a great deal of money to secure rezoning, win referenda and influence local decisions. Small business has to collectively make a decision to invest in its own future.
Key actions proposed by Beaumont which were taken from the Sierra Club Guide on this issue are as follows:37
"1. Obtain a copy of the developer's proposal and analyze it.
2. Find out if the proposed development complies with relevant federal, state and local laws.
3. Make a flow chart of the development review process and include time deadlines.
4. Think your objectives through carefully set priorities.
5. Organize a committee and delegate responsibility.
6. Develop a well-reasoned position on the proposed development and back up your position with careful research.
7. Develop grass-roots organizing and media strategies.
8. Generate letters to the editor and opinion pieces in the local paper early.
9. Meet with local officials and opinion leaders. Draw their attention to facts they need to know.
10. Turn out and speak out at public hearings.
11. Ask the city council to analyze the development's probable fiscal, economic, environmental, traffic and other impacts. Make sure long-term impacts are considered.
12. Circulate petitions.
13. Distribute similar fliers clearly summarizing your position and the reasons for it.
14. Raise money to pay for radio spots, newspaper ads, bumper stickers, and other ways of getting your message across.
15. Above all, build broad public support for your position. Work to reach different segments of the community, especially local business and civic leaders."
CONCLUSION
The author concludes this extensive review of the impact of the mega-retail discount chains on the economics and sociology of urban, suburban, "rurban" and rural areas with strong concern for the future of Young Americans. Where will they work? Where will they live? Will we live in an economy of hopelessness or one of opportunities and entrepreneurial growth? While intelligent government policy is creative; nevertheless, the spirit of entrepreneurship should be enacted into our enterprises, from a private as well as a public point of view.
The World is drowing in oceans of data:
"Growing net, computer and phone use is driving a huge rise in the amount of information people generate and use.
US researchers estimate that every year 800Mb of information is produced for every person on the planet.
Their study found that information stored on paper, film, magnetic and optical disks has doubled since 1999.
Paper is still proving popular though. The amount of information stored in books, journals and other documents has grown 43% in three years.
The researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, last carried out a study of how much information was being generated and where it was kept three years ago, based on data from 1999. The most recent study has revealed that every year since then the amount of information generated has grown about 30%.
But these percentages belie the vast mountains of information involved.
Study authors Prof Peter Lyman and colleagues found that in 2002 alone about five exabytes of new information was generated by the worlds print, film, magnetic and optical storage systems. By comparison the US Library of Congress print collection, comprising 19 million books and 56 million manuscripts, equates to about 10 terabytes of information.
It would take 500,000 Libraries of Congress to equal five exabytes.
But even this figure is dwarfed by the gargantuan amount of information flowing through electronic channels such as the telephone, radio, television and internet.
In 2002 the study estimates that 18 exabytes of new information flowed through these channels. The vast majority of this, 98%, was in the form of person-to-person phone calls. It also found that most of the information transmitted via radio and TV is not new information, the vast majority are repeats.
Of the 320 million hours of radio shows only 70 million hours are actually original shows. On TV only 31 million hours of the total 123 million hours of broadcast programmes count as new information. Prof Lyman said he was surprised that paper was still proving popular as a storage medium but put its resilience down to the fact that a lot of the information generated on computer is printed out.
The study also revealed an image of the average amount of time people spend with different sorts of media. It showed that the average American adult spends 16.17 hours on the phone a month, listens to 90 hours of radio and watches 131 hours of TV. The 53% of the US population that uses the net spends more than 25 hours online a month at home and more than 74 hours on the net at work. The researchers point out that this means we are accessing information media 46% of the time.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3227467.stm
Published: 2003/10/31 01:33:31 GMT
© BBC MMIII
<------------------------------------->
According to Robert McIntyre, a Director of Citizens for Tax Justice, Corporate tax rates are the lowest they have been in fifty years, and are heading lower.
How Low Can We Go?
Robert S. McIntyre is Director of Citizens for Tax Justice
"With President Bush's backing, Congress is considering bills to provide the third major corporate tax reduction in the past two years. In light of the government's dire budget straits, enacting still more tax cuts is irresponsible and reckless. Given the extraordinarily low level of corporate tax payments today, further corporate tax reductions are especially unwarranted. Instead, Congress should move in exactly the opposite direction, by closing loopholes and restoring corporate tax payments back up to a reasonable level.
Corporate taxes have already been slashed—with no positive effect on jobs. In the just completed fiscal year, combined federal personal and corporate income taxes fell to only 8.4 percent of the economy, their lowest level since before World War II and a third lower than in fiscal 2000—with no relief in sight.
Due in large part to the Bush tax cuts, personal income taxes have fallen to their lowest level as a share of the economy in more than 50 years. Corporate taxes have plummeted even more than personal taxes. In fact, at only 1.2 percent of the economy over the past two fiscal years, corporate taxes are at their lowest level since the 1930s, except for one year during Ronald Reagan's first term. The most recent OECD data show that U.S. corporate taxes as a share of the economy are now virtually the lowest in the industrialized world.
Some of the corporate tax shortfall reflects the weak economy, but most of it stems in roughly equal parts from Bush's big corporate tax cuts enacted in 2002 and 2003 and the huge amount of offshore tax sheltering that corporations now engage in.
The 2002 and 2003 tax bills provided business tax breaks officially estimated to cost $177 billion in fiscal years 2002 through 2005, with $64 billion of that in fiscal 2004 alone. While the exact cost of offshore corporate tax sheltering is unknown, reasonable estimates peg the cost at upwards of $50 billion a year.
Thus, recently created loopholes have slashed corporate tax payments by $100 billion or more annually—more than a 40 percent reduction since 2000. Counting tax breaks that have been on the books for longer, corporations now pay considerably less than half of what they should. They also pay far less than they used to pay. In fact, at 1.2 percent of the economy, corporate taxes are now three-fifths less than the 3.0 percent of the economy that corporate taxes averaged from 1950 through 2000.
Rather than address this egregious level of corporate tax avoidance, however, Congress and the President seem intent on preserving or expanding it.
The Senate Corporate Tax Bill—Missed Opportunities, Funny Bookkeeping
In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has expressed deep outrage over the past year about rampant corporate tax sheltering, particularly offshore abuses. But Sen. Grassley doesn't seem to understand that corporate tax avoidance is wrong not only because it's underhanded, but also because it drains the Treasury of needed revenue and shifts the burden onto ordinary Americans.
Sen. Grassley does include some useful curbs on corporate shelters in his bill. But those reforms would raise a total of only $39 billion over the next decade. At least that much in corporate loophole closing annually would be more serious.
Even worse, Sen. Grassley proposes to use the revenue raised from his modest reforms to open even more corporate loopholes, at a 10-year cost of $103 billion, including $37 billion to facilitate offshore tax avoidance!
Sen. Grassley actually asserts that his bill is "revenue-neutral"—as if that were a reasonable goal of corporate tax reform. This claim is based on the fact that the bill maintains $18 billion in customs fees that everyone agrees will be extended anyway and also because it complies with a World Trade Organization ruling against a foolish U.S. corporate export subsidy that ought to be counted as a $45 billion revenue-increasing offset, too.
Senator Grassley's approach of closing loopholes that ought to be closed, but then using the money to create new tax breaks is a lot like a bank forcing a would-be robber to put down his gun, but then giving him the money anyway so long as he asks nicely. A triumph of form over substance, you might say.
The House Bill—Deep Corporate Tax Cuts No Matter The Cost
Unfortunately, in the House, things are much worse. At the end of last July, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), with President Bush's blessing, introduced a bill to provide companies with a staggering $259 billion in new loopholes over the next decade. Among the items on this corporate wish list are $79 billion worth of expanded tax shelters for multinational corporations.
Rep. Thomas doesn't even give lip service to covering the enormous cost of his bill. He grudgingly offers a few minor reforms, but they raise a mere $9 billion over a decade. And like Sen. Grassley, he takes credit for extending existing customs fees and complying with the WTO ruling. But even if you mistakenly count those so-called offsets, Thomas's bill still costs a net of $186 billion over 10 years.
From Stock Fraud Newswire
What is Stock Fraud
"Stock fraud occurs when a broker manipulates customers into trading stocks without regard for the customer’s interests. Stock fraud can be orchestrated at the company level, or can be committed by a single employee; stock fraud can also range in size financially from multi-million dollar deals to penny stocks, but stock fraud consistently involves intentional disregard for the financial situation of customers and obsession with personal gain.
Stock fraud is comprised of a few basic categories, with enormous variations on each. Some examples of broker-related stock fraud:
Misrepresentation/Omission: this form of stock fraud occurs when the broker intentionally misleads the customer about material facts regarding the stock. Stock fraud involving misrepresentation or omission often disguises risk factors associated with that particular stock.
Unsuitability: stock frauds involving unsuitability occur when the broker recommends stocks that are outside the client’s risk tolerance. Stock frauds committed through unsuitable matches allow the broker to push undesirable stocks; this stock fraud frequently results in losses much higher than the client can bear.
Overconcentration: failure to diversify a client’s portfolio can be a form of stock fraud. In order to protect a client’s assets, the broker should vary the types of stock purchased, stock fraud through overconcentration strips the client of the protection diversification can afford.
Churning: In order to create additional broker’s fees, a form of stock fraud called “churning” is used. Churning requires a large numbers of transactions; often this form of stock fraud consists of selling stocks with small gains in order to show a profit.
More elaborate forms of stock fraud may occur at the executive level, and in some cases, investigators have found that stock fraud is essentially company policy, with many employees taking part in committing or concealing illegal practices. Stock fraud on the larger levels can destroy entire companies by manipulating their stock values, but some stock fraud schemes are actually designed to keep failing businesses funded, using the same tactics.
Many stock fraud investigations in recent years have found an enormous amount of insider trading: brokerages committing stock fraud by selling IPO stocks before the release date to favored clients and friends; corporations construct stock fraud schemes designed attract and retain customers and investors.
All forms of stock fraud are designed to violate the investor/broker trust. The key principle of stock fraud is that the investor’s interests are secondary to the financial gain the broker can make. Stock fraud can destroy individuals and business simply by manipulating the stock market. If you suspect that stock fraud caused you to lose investments, you may wish to contact an attorney familiar with stock fraud law. A good attorney can help you determine if you have a potential stock Fraud Claim that would enable you to recover financial losses.
Click Here for Stock Fraud Breaking News.....
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
From a commentary in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Wal-Mart makes workers pay
By ANNETTE BERNHARDT
Federal officials missed the boat last week when they arrested 300 undocumented workers whom contractors had hired to clean Wal-Mart stores. The real offenders aren't uncarded custodians. They are their employers and not simply because they employ undocumented immigrants.
Wal-Mart -- and other low-wage employers that follow its lead -- relentlessly and systematically cut costs by reducing the wages and health benefits of both its in-house and subcontracted workers, regardless of their immigration status. Jailing janitors after a long night shift of cleaning up after shoppers isn't the answer. Ultimately, the only effective response is to reinstate America's wage and workplace standards that have been decimated over the past 30 years.
Wal-Mart pays its in-house workers only $7 to $8 an hour. The federal poverty line for a family of four is $8.70 an hour. Wal-Mart's health insurance is so costly that fewer than half its workers can afford it. Many aren't even eligible.
Lawsuits pending against the company in 30 states charge that Wal-Mart routinely forces workers to work off the clock without pay, locking them in stores until they finish cleaning up.
This is not about keeping prices low for consumers. A recent calculation based on payroll data showed if Wal-Mart gave all of its workers a $1-an-hour raise, the impact on prices would be one half of one cent. Last year, Wal-Mart had profits of $8 billion. The CEO received $18 million in total compensation. Yet Wal-Mart aggressively violates workers' right to organize.
As documented in the nearly 50 complaints issued by the National Labor Relations Board, Wal-Mart has prevented its employees from distributing union materials, interrogated and threatened employees who are trying to organize, taken unlawful disciplinary action and fired union supporters, and even gone to the extreme of closing entire departments in a community like Jacksonville, Texas, when Wal-Mart meat workers voted for a union.
In short, Wal-Mart is not playing by the rules. Nor are many other employers who are pursuing its low-wage, cost-cutting business model in a wide range of industries, from hotels, hospitals, and call centers, to laundry, food processing, child care and home health care.
The cost to our society is enormous. Every day, one in four American workers does not earn enough to live on and support a family. There are now 30 million low-wage workers in this country. With no health insurance, they are forced to go to emergency rooms for routine care. To make ends meet, they must apply for food stamps and rental assistance, use subsidized child care vouchers and draw on other government services.
This means we the taxpayers are involuntarily subsidizing low-wage employers, and in the process, are supporting a business strategy antithetical to the American dream: that hard work opens the door to upward mobility and economic freedom. Turning the tide will take an enormous commitment. It will take re-establishing he right to organize for all workers -- both by enforcing existing labor laws and by instituting long-overdue changes to cover millions of Americans, including many "new economy" workers.
It will take raising our national wage floor. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997. That's 40 percent lower in real terms than it was in 1968, and $3.50 an hour below the federal poverty line for a family of four.
This falling wage floor has created the wrong incentives. High-wage employers can simply subcontract jobs to other firms that have no problem paying poverty wages.
And it will take charting a clear path to citizenship for undocumented workers. With or without papers, immigrants have become a vital part of America's economy. They do the work that keeps this country running -- in construction and restaurants, child care and home care. Ensuring their right to the protections that the rest of us take for granted will go a long way toward stopping exploitative employers.
Wal-Mart has set a trap for us by pitting consumers against workers with the myth that living wages are incompatible with affordable goods. The truth is, in the long run, poverty wages undermine the health of our workers, our families, our communities and, ultimately, our economy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Bernhardt is a senior policy analyst at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.
The Weekly Standard says Sen. Zell Miller (D) from Georgia supports, and will campaign for Pres. Bush's Re-Election in 04.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Amazon.com expands it's offerings with "Search Inside the Book", an extention of their previous "Look Inside the Book" which has been around since 2001. One hundred ninety publishers with over 120,000 titles are available. You can seach by keyword, and page back/forth from your search items. Wonderful research tool !!
October 28, 2003
NY Times Article
A Willful Ignorance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
According to The New York Times, President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly that war — which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and minds — is going.
Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity: "The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.
But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version of political correctness has made it difficult even to discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to understand — not condone — the growing world backlash against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered in a tone of high moral indignation. The attackers claim to be standing up for moral clarity, and some of them may even believe it. But they are really being used in a domestic political struggle.
Last week I found myself caught up in that struggle. I wrote about why Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister — a clever if loathsome man who adjusts the volume of his anti-Semitism depending on circumstances — chose to include an anti-Jewish diatribe in his speech to an Islamic conference. Sure enough, I was accused in various places not just of "tolerance for anti-Semitism" (yes, I'm Jewish) but of being in Mr. Mahathir's pay. Smear tactics aside, the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment anti-Semitism — and looks for ways other than military force to combat the disease — is an apologist for anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.
Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.
Why is aiding a brutal dictator O.K., while trying to understand why others don't trust us — and doing something to create that trust — isn't? Why won't the administration mollify Muslims by firing Lt. Gen. William Boykin, whose anti-Islamic remarks have created vast ill will, from his counterterrorism position? Why won't it give moderate Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned, and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly critical of Mr. Sharon?
The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does. It's sheer folly to keep General Boykin in his present position, but as Howard Fineman writes in a Newsweek Web-exclusive column, the administration doesn't want "to make a martyr of a man who depicts himself as a Christian Soldier, marching off to war."
Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration — no longer able to claim the Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans — looks more and more like a crusade. "Election Boils Down to a Culture War" was the title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme. This isn't a culture war — it's a religious war.
Which brings me back to my starting point: we'll lose the fight against terror if we don't make an effort to understand how others think. Yet because of a domestic political struggle that seems ever more centered on religion, such attempts at understanding are shouted down. "
<------------------------------------->
From a public message on Ecunet about sectarianism, territorialism, and denominationalism:
To: UCCHRIST CHATTER NEWSGROUP
by Rev. Robert Campbell
"Sue, I find this response difficult to write to you, but I feel I must. What I am going to share with you is not easy for me, and so do not think that I say this without some trepidation.
What I am talking about is territorialism. I am working against this issue in my town. People are divided between them and us, their church and my church, etc.
Sharing ministry with other ministers is often impossible because we instill in pastors loyalty to their own particular denomination or church rather than challenge them to break down the barriers of division and consider all the churches as part of the Body of Christ-united despite our petty denominationalism. I certainly do not like what the pastor did, but only because I suspect that he does not consider his ministry as a part of your ministry. Radical relationship, I know.
Churches are also fighting over people for survival rather than uniting to survive. We divide our resources and so starve ourselves. I am reminded of what Jesus said when the Pharisees thought he was Satan casting out demons, and Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Yet, we take the Body of Christ and divide itself against itself. We are blessed that Jesus exists beyond our ability to work against Jesus.
What I propose is by no means easy. Some of us have firm foundational differences and practices. Some misuse their power and position. Some are so infant in their relationship with God and passing on such an infant relationship to its parish that one hurts for the people. Compassion and understanding is often felt to be pressed to its limits, and I fall on my knees in humility before a God that can love them so-even when they choose to walk in self-destructive ways. Being able and willing to walk in discipleship with and in conjunction with such people is the toughest calling one can respond to.
The attitude presented by the pastor is often the same for the person in the pew. Church members usually have the same territorial attitudes, for they have been taught to believe that. So I know that there is much work to do to change the average church goer. But the place to begin is with one's own church members.
Sue, I did not mean to ramble. But I write to you from my heart about something I saw in your post. My hope is that you might find something in what I say here that may help you grow and move in a direction that the Holy Spirit may direct and move you. If I have offended you, I am truly sorry. My intention was not to offend-only challenge
Monday, October 27, 2003
Report: Florida loses more than $1 billion a year in tax loopholes
Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Ninety-eight percent of the estimated 1.5 million businesses in Florida paid no corporate income tax last year while a state estimate shows exemptions and loopholes cost Florida $1.2 billion a year in taxes, a newspaper reported Sunday.
A report by the St. Petersburg Times found:
_ Corporate income tax collections as a percentage of state tax revenue are at their lowest point since 1972-73.
_ In 2001, Florida lost a larger percentage of revenue because of questionable tax shelters than all but two of the 45 states that impose a corporate income tax, according to a recent study by the Multistate Tax Commission, a nonpartisan group of state taxing authorities. It found that tax shelters cost Florida more than $500 million in 2001.
_ The system is increasingly inequitable for businesses, with just 5,303 companies paying 98 percent of the tax in 2001.
_ By one state estimate, legal exemptions, credits, deductions and loopholes cost Florida $1.2 billion a year - more than the corporate tax generates.
Florida has a low corporate income tax rate - a flat 5.5 percent of a company's net income in the state. Analysts said businesses have avoided corporate taxes through aggressive tax planning, the help of a state tax code full of loopholes and politicians unwilling to revisit the rules.
"The real explanation is that the corporate tax has become a voluntary tax," said Richard Pomp, a tax professor at the University of Connecticut Law School. "The Legislature doesn't control it. The (state) tax department doesn't control it. Accountants and lawyers control it."
"There's a good side to it," said Jim Zingale, executive director of the Department of Revenue. "We appear to have a strong business climate today that we didn't have in past recessions."
State officials also stressed that many of the zero-paying businesses are small and most pay property, unemployment, sales and use taxes as well as annual filing fees. The companies also employ tens of thousands of Floridians who also pay sales and property taxes.
Businesses said they have a duty to seek any legal way to cut their tax bills and noted that they are simply following the rules set by the state.
"A lot of our shareholders rely on that stock to live their daily lives," said Bob Elek, spokesman for Verizon. "Obviously, we are going to position ourselves the best way we can from a tax perspective."
Sen. Walter "Skip" Campbell, D-Tamarac, chairman of the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee, said he plans to examine corporate income tax loopholes next year but acknowledges tax reform stands little chance. "The Legislature doesn't have the guts to stand up to corporations and say, 'Come on, contribute,'" he said.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Do you remember your last geography lesson? Know where the West Bank is? Gaza?
Have you seen the changes in the area maps for any length of time? Ancient, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, Pre-1946, Pre-1968, Pre-2001?
The area around Jerusalem has experienced more redistricting episodes than any other land area on Earth.
Here's a view of the Wall's Route
...and some more info on it from a moderately objective journalist.
Viewing this activity constantly brings to mind the famous poetic line: "...and what rough beast, it's hour comes round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born." One of the holiest sites on the planet claimed by three world religions. Who expects anything different? Three major wars in fifty years versus Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon; but unfortunately for the Palestinians the Israelies have won all. Plus the Israelies get to claim they were, and still are only trying to protect themselves from [Fanatics/Fundamentalists/Terrorists/Autocratic Arab States bent on their distruction/etc] Based on recent voting at the UN, 140+ Nation States don't buy that argument any longer; but 5 or so do. Wanna guess who the 4-5 countries are that never seem to be able to vote against Israel for anything?
In the latest vote, condeming the building of the Wall, the four countries voting against were: Israel, yeah...and America, ok....and....The Marshall Islands !! ... and Micronesia !!! Now please tell me how this can be viewed by any rational person as a supportable position for a neutral person? Everyone else other than Israel and America is wrong about the Wall's construction? (Sorry, don't mean to ignore the other two...but come on, their combined population is less than the population of any reasonably sided city!). And what use is it if America publicizes it's "Official" dislike for the "Security Fence"; but will not vote for a condemnation of it on the World stage? It seems to the World a tacit admission that America doesn't vote against Israel ever, regardless of what it does.
General Boykin's remarks pale in comparison as a reflection of the Americana Realpolitik with Israel, especially when compared with it's actions toward the Islamic/Arabic/Third World. If I were not an American, I can easily see I'd have a real problem with viewing America favorably as a Model World-Class Citizen.
Despite another overwhelmingly negative vote by the UN against the further construction of The Wall in Israel, the Sharon Government is continuing building it.
