This entry details how the Top Elite control more than their share of influence, and that they should be taxed accordingly. It also discusses the UC regents and their recent demands, and my major solution to those demands. My solution is offered in the last paragraph of the article.
The reason I would not mind if our Uber Rich got hit with a Sixty Percent Tax Rate...
Wed Jan-05-11 09:13 PM
Now let us take one of these Uber Rich as an example:
Blum is married to California US Senator Diane Feinstein. Once Diane rearranged the laws regarding ethics for the Senate, she was able to vote for the Iraqi Resolution in the Fall of 2002 with a straight face, then go home to her lil snookie poo and tell him the good news.
As a result, it was not much of a surpise for some of us to find out that within six weeks of the launch of the Spring 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign, Blum had netted some 27 million dollars worth of major contracts related to the war.
Did it matter to Blum that this war was built on a stack of lies? I don't know, but my gut tells me that the 16 million dollar house that he and Di Fi purchased inside the Presideo, with a view the Chronicle described as being 'To Die For," something tells me that his conscience was assauged.
Now Blum is surfacing in the headline news once again. While the state of California is facing a disastrous time, with our county, city and state budgets shredded to the bone, Richard Blum is sitting pretty. After all, he is currently the head regent over the UC University system.
Back in September 2010, the regents imposed by unanimous vote an increase in the amount that UC and its employees would contribute to the pension plan, taking an important step (or so they declared) towards "putting it on solid financial footing."
Beginning in July 2011, employee members of the UC Retirement Plan (UCRP) will begin contributing 3.5 percent of salary into the plan; UC will contribute 7 percent. The amount will increase again in July 2012, with employees paying 5 percent and UC paying 10 percent.
But this is not all. While the cashier at the cafeteria faces this uptick in her payments into the Retirement Plan, Blum and the rest of the regents want to see an enforcement of a 2007 provision of the California legislature: to whit, that they receive immediate increases in the pension amounts that they receive per year and other benefits. If this is not done, then our fine Mr Blum suggests that the regents will have no other recourse than to sue the school, or the state or both.
My attitude on this is quite firm: since the regents can legally mandate this pension and other benefit hikes, fine, just give it to them. Avoid the threat of the law suit. But since their salaries can be undone the first time the California legislature meets in 2011, give them all a one dollar a year salary stipulation, and then even if the regents manage to get a pension that is 100% of their salary, the last laugh will be on them!
Though I have to admit it would be quite tragic for Richard and Di Fi to have to live on her Senate pension, and his war contract profits which now have probably been re-invested profitably a dozen times over.