December 20, 2016

12.1% in 2011: The United States' lowest AVERAGE effective corporate tax rate in four decades.

Intro:  The following article is only confusing, because Americans believed in
good faith the lies told to them about corporate taxes ... throughout the 2012 Re-
publican Party primary debates.  The Republican presidential candidates paint-
ed the picture of a financial horror story to the point of crying out that the sky is
falling.  Well, in the Year 2011, the AVERAGE effective tax rate of American
corporations was a bargain basement 12.1%.

Concerning Republican propaganda and the infamous Romney 47% video, why
do people who have more than enough money complain about having to miss a
child's soccer game, in order to amass more money that isn't needed?  In addi-
tion, what extra time is acquired in making money of off interest-bearing notes?
The only answer to the first question is that they are people not grateful for what
they have, but who obsessively seek to consummate insatiable greed.  They see
themselves as not having enough money. 

The compulsive gambler and drug addict mind set of present corporate Ameri-
can resulted in an income disparity of 288.  This refers to the reports which re-
vealed that a member of the Economic 1% makes 288 times more income per
year than a median worker with a $57,000 yearly income.
The chart used to advocate the trickle-down theory of Reaganomics is the Laffer
Curve.  The root of the curve is 14th Century Tunisian philosopher, Ibn Khaldun. 
In fact, the charted curve looks like a roller coaster design.  None the less, the as-
sertion attached to the curve is that lowering business taxes will result in added
investment on the part of business, thereby creating jobs in the process.  The ad-
ditional investment would then result in profits and wages.  In turn, the added
profits and new wages would result in additional tax revenue.

The problem today is that history has repeatedly illustrated that the Laffer Curve
assertion is invalid in the presence of widespread outsourcing and overseas tax
havens.  This is because much of the added money-in-hand is sent overseas, cre-
ating a drain on the nation's money supply.  In as much, corporate dollars have
NOT been trickling down. They were going overseas, thanks to a Newt Gingrich
who advocated a practice which has regarded as a crime against humanity in the
Nuremberg trials.  America's corporate management adopted the "take the money
and run" policy.

Now, the Laffer Curve's main assertion is based on an assumption about human
behavior that was disproved during the Clinton Years.  It assumed that corpor-
ate management was going to take the newly available corporate dollars and in-
vest them in America.  Overseas tax havens and foreign sweatshop profiteering
wasn't in the original equation.  Now, concerning Reagan's trickle-down theory,
know that the circular "flow of income & expenditures" is NOT a matter of mon-
ey trickling-down or drying-up.  It's a matter of injection vs. leakage into and
out of the circular flow that is illustrated at the beginning of any introductory
economics school book. 

              The Lowest Effective Corporate Tax Rate in Decades

The effective corporate tax rate of 2011 was its lowest in 40 years, at 12.1%.
This means that 2012 should have resulted in the highest job creation in dec-
ades.  It didn't do so, despite the fact that the effective U.S. corporate tax rate
is among the lowest on earth.

Now, in 2010 and 2011, corporations were permitted to instantly deduct the
sum total of new equipment, instead of depreciating it through the years.  In
2012, the immediate deduction will be 50%.  Due to this, it is assumed that
the effective tax rate of 2012 will be the usual 25.6%.  The door for added
employment was open in 2011 and 2012.  There was a bit of job creation,
but not the amount that the Laffer Curve theory would predict. 

The link to an outline of the 2010 effective tax rates of 280 corporations is
posted below.  It gives some insight to the present economy.

See also:

The New York Times reported six weeks before the start of the Occupy Wall
Street Movement that workers' wages were declining,  while corporate profits
were rising.  Thus, even though the final thesis statements of the movement were
in need of radical amendment, the movement itself was the result of cause and
effect.  Very simply, the movement was the result of college graduates being im-
mersed in college loan debt, while being deprived of the income needed to pay-
off the loans.

The reason for the movement was very simple, yet not universal enough in its
scope of issues to have succeeded .  None the less, the OWS Movement was
a warning call to the upper economic echelons of society.  The call was ignored.

In addition, corporate profits reached record profits in the 3rd quarter of 2011,
to the tune of $1.97 trillion.  In the same quarter, worker output rose 3.2% (as is
measured in annual terms).  Yet, the workers' share of new income fell to 57.1%. 
Before the Year 2000, it was approximately 63.9%.  The bottom line is that work-
ers were not getting paid commensurately.

The summary is that real income amongst workers decreased, while U.S. corpor-
ations reached record profits.  There was no trickle-down parity occurringonly
the presence of greed.  A case in point comes from the U.S. Congressional Bud-
get Office.  It reported that the income of the richest 1% rose 275% from 1979
to 2009.  Recent reports from media sources placed the number at 288%.)  In
contrast, the income of the bottom 20% rose no more than 20% during the same
time span.  Thus, the phenomenon of American income disparity is quantitative.

Even though there's an element of validity in the Laffer Curve, there is NO basis
in reality for the "trickle-down" mechanism, being that money travels sideways
in a circular flow (and NOT vertically in any type of economic caste system king
of the hill game).  Economics students learn this during the introductory week of

An economist has the task of watching for impediments to the circular flow, as
well as watching for leaks draining money away from the flow.  Equilibrium is
the economist's goal.  In as much, a continuous Trade Balance Deficit, as the one
that the American economy has been experiencing for consecutive decades, is a
huge leak of the circular flow.  It's like a hole in a ship's haul.  This means that
right wing operatives have the moral obligation to cease blaming unemployment
on America's unemployed.  FAIR trade and FAIR exchange is what is essential
in economics.  The "free trade" label used by Republican politicians refers to
none other than trade that is free of regulation.  It refers to trade that is free of

"Free trade" simply means being free of  a watchdog that would otherwise pre-
vent you from profiting from the gross injustices seen since the days of Newt
Gingrich.  Therefore, the "Free Trade" logo is as bogus as is the "right to
work state" label.

As a reminder, a right to work state is nothing more the typical union-busting
low-wage state.  A right to work state is a permission slip to keep the worker
far less protected than the norms of civilization require.  Such states result in a
large population of the working poor.  This includes large numbers of the 47%
who were maliciously and fallaciously treated with contempt by Mitt Romney
and right wing activists.  The irony of the "free trade" label is that it thrived
on slave labor.  Money made this way was money made by cheating.

December 19, 2016

200+ chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples ... 80,000 on U.S. market without being proven safe

... was the reason for the introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act.  If the
    Republicans truly cared about curtailing medical costs, they would have
    championed the original Safe Chemicals Act.  In that way, a multitude
    of people would have been spared of the ill effects of untested synthetic
    chemicals, ranging from asthma attacks to endocrine disruption to head-
    aches to dermatitis to sinusitis to inflamed nerve endings to cancer.

The 2015-2016 (114th Congress) version of the proposed bill is found at:

    Chemical Anarchy and Modern Society

Estrogenated chemicals have been allowed to be dispersed throughout water,
air, land without the rule of law protecting life on earth.  We can begin with
the effect of the hormone disrupting herbicide atrazine upon hermaphrodite
frogs and proceed to the phenomenon of the feminizing of the younger males
of America.  We can then reiview how etrogenated chemicals are a fuel for
cancer and a catalyst for widespread obesity in the United States & Mexico,
accompanied by 80,000 chemicals on the U.S. market.

The Chemical Age in General is discussed at the following link:

Hormone Disruptor chemical pollution even European coastal waters

Update:  It appears that the 2013 version of the proposed Safe Chemicals Act
is a compromised product, an very ineffective watered-down version thereof.
This is the assessment of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, an affiliate
of the Nobel Prize winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nu-
clear War.

Plus, in sweatshop China, cancer rates among children have been on the rise.
A child is defined as anyone under the age of 14. 

Irresponsibility Squared and Cubed:  
Getting wealthy while harming others.

To start, what point is there being the richest of the rich, if your home is on an
earth which has been flooded with noxious chemicals which even disrupt the
natural equilibrium of hormones?  What point is there being wealthy in a world
of chromosome breakers, liver cell killers, neurotoxins, etc?  What point is there
in being rich in a chemically induced freak show caused by the greed of a few?

Hundreds of chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples

The Safe Chemicals Act was first introduced in the US Senate in 2011, by the
late Frank Lautenberg.  The 2013 revised edition thus for has 29 co-sponsors.
The motive for the bill was the quantitative fact that laboratory testing detect-
ed hundred of chemicals in umbilical cord blood samples.

In case you are unfamiliar with United States Law, chemicals in household pro-
ducts do not have to be proven harmless, in order to appear in the products that
Americans take home from the store.  This includes previously the mentioned
hormone disruptors, sensitizers, and irritants, as well as those chemicals listed
amongst the Genotoxic/Mutagenic class, the Hepatotoxic Class (liver cell kill-
ers,) the Cell-mediated allergens, Reproductive Toxins, Bronchoconstrictors,
Neurotoxins, Respiratory Irritants, and those oxidative chemicals which pro-
duce allergenic compounds whenever exposed to air.

Out of 80,000+ chemicals listed in the United States EPA's Toxic Substance
Control Act list, a grand total of FIVE chemicals were banned.  Yet, asthma
and cancer rates have been rising as a matter of course,  and hermaphrodite
aquatic life has been discovered.  Keep in mind that household chemicals
end up in land fills, eventually to leak into ground water via cracks in the
landfills and even via rain water.

The endocrine disruptors also end up in drinking water supplies.  In as much,
no water treatment plant extracts the estrogen from the eight primary sources
of it, the "pill" being one of the eight.

Concerning the Trade Secret law by which fragrance product ingredients
do not have to be made known to the public:

1] It was an abuse of power, on behalf of those who arranged the law.
2] It's a pointless law, being that scientists can analyze fragrance pro-
    ducts and discern their ingredients. 

Hormone disruptors permitted in American water supplies and
the ever so coincidental discovery of hermaphrodite aquatic life

Enter April 10, 2013.  This was the date when the 2013 Safe Chemicals Act
was introduced into the U.S. Congress by the late senator, Frank Lautenberg
and New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand.  The bill has 27 other co-sponsors.
The bill's number is S.696.

Between the Years 2011 and 2013, due to the obstructionist nature of the Re-
publican Party, and their glut of filibusters, a grand total of 2% of the laws in-
troduced in the Senate were enacted.  The Safe Chemicals Act was assessed
at having an  8% chance of becoming law.  Yet, S.696 has an 84% chance of
getting past committee.  In this instance, it's the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.  Incidentally, between 2011 and 2013, only 12% of the bills
introduced  in the Senate made their ways past any committee.

1] We live in an era where it has been 100% proven that chemical allergies exist,
as does Occupational Asthma due to Low-weight Molecular Agents and irritant-
induced diseases such as Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive
Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and Irritant-induced Asthma.  Such patients
have the right to avoid the chemicals which trigger their fight to breath.  Such
chemicals go unchecked, unregulated, and unbridled.

2] Present U.S. law on chemicals is so unjust that, in the past 37 years, only
five chemicals have been banned.  Yet, numerous ones were proven to trigger
asthma, kill liver cells, break chromosome chains, disrupt hormonal balance,
have a neurotoxin effect, and qualify as threats to health.  There exists 84,000
chemicals in the EPA inventory.

3] The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found 212 chemicals in the
modern human body.  The Republican Party, in its pathological greed, and the
chemical industry, in its predatory greed, turned the human body into a toxic
waste dump.

4] The Safe Chemicals Act would:
  • Allow the EPA to have a health and safety information data base that can be applied to the assessment of new chemicals, thereby bypassing redundant testing.
  • Screen chemicals for safety by means of a priority scale, gauged according to risk, so that EPA can focus allotted dollars on evaluating chemicals most likely to cause harm,  while simultaneously attending to a backlog of untested chemicals.
  • Automatically assigns risk management requirements for any chemical which cannot be proven safe.  This can include restricting the use of the chemical, placing a warning label on the chemical, mandating disposal protocol upon the chemical, and even banning the chemical.  
  • To provide a public catalog of chemicals, comprising the health and safety information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the findings of the EPA, while protecting trade secrets.
  • Provide incentives and means for the invention of safe chemical alternatives.
Since 1976, numerous chemicals have been identified as sensitizers. A sensitiz-
er is that which becomes an allergen, after a period of repeated exposure to it.
Thus, it was not fair for the government to let society be exposed to sensitizing

In like fashion, we were also shown the statistical nexus between chemical ex-
posure and the rise of the rate of autism.  Simultaneously, hermaphrodite aquat-
ic life, apparently due to the heavily estrogenated water supplies, was located.
This shows that the Toxic Substance Control Act 1976 has near zero effective-

In a 2012 poll ...  done by a Republican firm ... showed that American voters
"overwhelmingly support reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, with 
half saying that they would strongly support reform for the regulation of 
chemicals produced and used in the United States." ... "Support for reform-
ing the law is widespread and broad-based."

Three-quarters of small business owners polled by the American Sustainable
Business Council believe that there should be stricter regulation on chemicals
used in everyday life.  Furthermore, 87% of the small business owners polled
support government regulation of chemicals used in growing food.  In similar
fashion,  73% of those polled support government regulation to ensure that the
products which companies buy and sell are non-toxic.

In as much, all indication is that the American people are behind this bill.  The
only antagonists to it are the Republicans in the House of Representatives who
kowtow to any corporation or industry which funds the politicians' re-election

The late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the original
bill in 2011.  It was re-introduced shortly before his death.

Drawing people's attention to the millions of respiratory patients who are sen-
sitive to modern chemicals would be a start.  Pointing out the liver cell killing
capacity of other ones, as well as the neurotoxic effect of yet more, along with
the endocrine disrupting capacity of yet other ones would be a good follow-up.
Add to this those chemicals which break chromosome chains.

The Safe Chemicals Act (S.696) is found here

(Note:  The number 113 refers to the 113th Congress.)

The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks of the necessity
to enact a Safe Chemicals Act, whatever be it's name.

A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here: