STOP BEING SILENT -- THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH

For years and years, you have watched the wasteful and counterproductive war on some drugs. You have remained silent. You tell yourself that people who break the law get what they deserve. You tell yourself that your joint, toke or line is not really breaking the law, it is bending the law. You tell yourself that only the bad guys get arrested for drugs so it is OK that people are put into prison for what you do to relax. You ignore the violence in Mexico and our inner cities.

Because if you speak up and say how stupid it all is, you might not be promoted or you might not get re-elected. If you are in law enforcement, you might get fired.

BUT NOW WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO FUND GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE WASTEFUL AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

ARE YOU STILL GOING TO REMAIN SILENT?

This country is about to make some really stupid and damaging choices. We are going to lower funding for colleges, but keep funding for prisons. We are going to fire teachers and firefighters, but keep wasting money on arresting people for marijuana.

You are not from Libya. You will not get shot for speaking out.

There is power in all of us deciding to tell the truth about the war on drugs. Portugal has shown us all the way. Let's follow their example.

FEAR OF ZEROS

Almost all of us have a fear of dealing with large sums of money.

When I was a young assistant corporate counsel, I was getting ready to negotiate my first big contract. The corporate counsel who was my mentor told me, "Do not be afraid of the zeros."

He believed that people got frightened regarding large sums of money and that fear caused them to make stupid decisions.

When we bought the Victorian house in Berkeley, my mother said, "You are paying $117,000 for a HOUSE?" Now Victorians in Berkeley are worth over $500,000. Too bad we had to sell the house.

When we look at state and federal budgets we react with fear of the zeros. We think it is fine for people to owe at least 30% of their net worth. Corporations can owe more than their total net worth. But government, they say, should not spend more than it gets in taxes.

Look what they are actually doing by getting you to believe in the fear of zeros.

They are cutting funding to education, which is the nation's future.

They are cutting funding for health care, which causes people to become sicker, possibly making us all ill with the infections poor people get and cannot afford to cure.

They are busting unions, which is the way that the worker is given a voice and a living wage.

They are cutting spending on infrastructure, which costs lives and money as bridges fall down and pipes blow up.

They are giving tax breaks to the rich, and increasing taxes for the poor.

And, BTW, the people who give to their campaigns get to spend as much government monies as they want.

Do not be afraid of the zeros. Make decisions based on percentages. Sorry if that makes you have to learn math.

Quick math lesson. 60% of a dollar is 60 cents. 25% of a dollar is a quarter. Twp thirds of a dollar is 66 cents. One quarter of a dollar is a quarter.

Fear of zeros is making us all lose sight of what government does that is important in our lives and the lives of our children.

MATH ERROR HURTS OLDER WOMEN IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY

I believe that there is a serious math error in the computer program the Santa Clara County Courts use to calculate temporary spousal support. This math error means that persons receiving spousal support are getting LESS support.

Santa Clara County, like most counties in California, has a temporary spousal support (alimony) formula, which judges and attorneys use to set temporary spousal support.

I believe that the computer program that the court uses to automatically do the math for the support formula is incorrectly doing the calculations for tax consequences.

If you take the formula and do the calculations using a calculator, the amount to be paid is ALWAYS greater than the amount set by the computer program. This defies logic, because the person who pays spousal support gets to deduct the support from his taxes, while the person receiving support must pay taxes on the support income. Even a rough estimate by a mathematician will confirm that one does not have to reduce a payment that is tax deductible in order to make the payment more fair.

These formulas are an add on to the state child support formula. Child support is NOT deductible to the person paying, and is not income to the person receiving child support. In such an instance, tax consequences become important. If child support takes 40% of the payor's income, and the payor's income taxes are 40% of income, the payor may have only 20% of his income left for living expenses.

However, spousal support is tax deductible to the payor. A spousal support payment of $1000 a month could save the payor $400 a month in taxes. So the payor can actually afford to pay MORE in spousal support because of the tax savings.

It should also be noted that the court formula uses "net income", rather than gross income, but does not define "net income". In the past, people who expected to share in movie profits discovered that it is REALLY IMPORTANT to define net income.

This is serious stuff. Older women, who have raised their children, are the most affected by this math error. I do not understand why no one else has noticed this problem.

USING ONE PERSON TO DEFINE A GROUP OF PEOPLE

Too often we use one person to define a whole group of people.

For instance, you know one person who is too lazy to work and who is getting unemployment insurance payments. You decide that all unemployed people are exactly like the person you know.

You know one disabled person who you think is lazy. You decide that all disabled people are just too lazy to work.

You know one minority person who is a drug addict. You decide that all minority people are drug addicts.

I think that this is the logic that Republicans and Libertarians use when they decide that the government should not help the sick and the poor. I think this because I am fairly certain that the Republicans and Libertarians do not actually want to see people dying of starvation or from a curable illness.

As you know, I believe that laying off numerous governmental workers will cause the recovery to slow and cost us a LOT more money than we save.

You need to stop thinking of the deficit in terms of billions of dollars and start thinking of the defect in terms of percentage of income being borrowed to invest in the future. If the government was a business, banks would find that its debt to equity ratio was more than reasonable.

You invest in your own future when you buy a car using borrowed monies. My guess is that you spend a higher percentage of your income on that new car than the government spends on its debt.

We need to stop using scare tactics and start using logic and science to make our decisions.

UNASKED FOR ADVICE

There are now several countries where large demonstrations resulted in the resignation of their current leader.

I am very pleased that the people of these countries are getting a voice in the running of their country.

My advice?

Your constitution is VERY important. It should have three branches of government, an elected leader, a legislative body, and an independent court system. It should protect the civil rights of the people. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the prohibition against holding someone in jail without formal criminal charges, the prohibition against searches of home and persons without a search warrant are all really important. And I am not a constitutional lawyer, I could have forgotten an important right.

Do NOT finalize a new constitution without the input of constitutional lawyers. Countries who have not enjoyed civil rights may want to take the advice of constitutional lawyers from countries who do have civil rights for their citizens.

I also suggest that you invite the United Nations to supervise the elections. This is for two reasons. Countries where a bribe is normal in order to get something approved have great difficulty in teaching people that it is possible to be honest when doing business. People who have had to protest again and again to get the right to have democracy often do not understand that they can lose elections. Having the UN certify the election helps people believe that the elections were fair.

Please remember that a democracy is not a one time thing. Democracy takes work, and that work is NEVER finished.

TEA PARTY IN CONGRESS -- LEARN THE RULES

It is too bad no one has written a book called, "Congressional Rules for the Complete Idiot."

Back in my youth, a man did an illustrated book called "How to fix your Volkswagen for the Complete Idiot". Many of us actually rebuilt engines using this book. Not me. I just gave unwanted advice when the budding mechanics were stuck. After that, there were a LOT of books called HOW TO ____ for the Idiot.

Many people get upset when given a book for idiots. I ALWAYS buy these books when I am stuck on a computer program problem. I know the books are written in a way that I might be able to understand.

US Congressional rules can be really complex and obscure. Unless these rules are learned and understood, new members can be made to look really stupid. It is probably necessary to hire an experienced aide and listen to the advice regarding how rules can be used against you.

Why am I helping the Tea Party? Because I know some of them are Libertarians. I am hoping theLibertarians will introduce legislation to remove marijuana from the federal drug laws. Actually, my dream is to repeal all federal drug laws, but at least we can start with something we all agree on.

CORPORATE WRONGDOING?

For years, corporations have ignored the rules set up by federal and state governments regarding employees and/or consultants.

(Please see an attorney before you even THINK about becoming a whistleblower. A whistleblower is an inside person who tells the authorities about wrongdoing.)

The main rules which were ignored were:

A person working on your premises, using your equipment, is almost always considered an employee. The penalty for the company could be that the company has to pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, etc. for all persons deemed to be employees, rather than consultants. This can include interest and penalties.

If an employee is not actually managing anything, the employee may NOT be exempt from overtime payments. In California, the company could owe three times the unpaid overtime.

If your employee is an exempt employee and works over 40 hours a week, you have to divide his salary by the hours he actually works, before you charge the federal government for his time.

READ YOUR CONTRACT. If you are doing business with the federal government, your contract should have a page or two of small print, most of which refers to laws, regulations and/or presidential proclamations. At the very least, your attorney needs to read all of the laws, regulations and/or presidential proclamations and tell you what you need to do to comply.

Sometimes the penalty for disobeying these laws, rules and regulations is that a company can lose the right to contract with the federal government. Sometimes all they do is refuse to pay you for your work.

DO NOT SAY THAT I DID NOT WARN YOU!

WARNING TO FELLOW BLOGGERS

The Federal Truth In Advertising laws apply to bloggers who receive money or goods to review a product. This means that you have to "disclose", which means you have to tell people about the money or goods you got regarding the product. You should do the disclosing in the same blog as the product review. If you are getting paid, in any way, you should check with an attorney to make certain you do not get into trouble.

Truth In Advertising also applies to social media. If I were doing social media advertising, I would be checking with my attorneys regarding the effect of this law on what I do.

An interesting question is whether the "Truth" in Truth In Advertising means only telling the truth about the product being "pushed", or does it also mean telling the truth about the sharing of personal data?