Romneys tax plan "He wont say."

The Obama campaign has come out with a great new ad hitting Romney about his tax returns, as well as his lack of transparency regarding his tax plan.

This Obama ad, called "He wont say" is actually the kind of ammunition the Obama campaign should be using to defeat Romney's presidential bid. Obama has been running the kind of campaign that has pulling no punches, which is great.

Liberals have had a long history of trying to be the better man, but no where does it say that being the better man doesn't involve swinging the sledgehammer of truth. I don't think anyone can deny that Romney has been waging a really dirty campaign. With ads that blatantly lie, such as the famous Welfare ad which is a huge distortion of a law president Obama had signed granting waivers that allow states to come up with new ways to increase employment, but only if they have a 20% increase in employment.

But facts never get in the way of a good lie.

Even more brazen is the way in which the Romney campaign doubles down on lies. Even so far as to say that "We will not be dictated by fact-checkers"

So let's contrast a bit here. Obama releases ads that are honest, if not a little unfair sometimes.

But Romney, not only releases completely false attacks, but when fact checkers point out his hypocrisy, he yells Liberal media bias and then doubles down.

And then there's the issue of Romney's tax returns, which he still refuses to release. Just the fact that we know more about the Higgs Boson particle then Mitts taxes is a little bit disturbing. There's a reason that he is hiding his returns, or more than one.

I think that if you're running to be President, we should have transparency, we should know what he does with his money. If he really believes a businessman should be a president, then why not follow the same standards as a business does when hiring someone new. Releasing tax returns is like the presidential version of a credit check, or even a criminal background check. It's also a measure of patriotism, someone who doesn't even believe in America enough to store his money here is not a patriot in my opinion.

Which leads me to say that Mitt doesn't care about helping Americans, he only cares about himself. His tax plan, which doesn't even add up unless you completely decimate the poor and middle classes, is all about using his position to enrich himself further.

We can only speculate on his plans because just like his Tax returns he is simply not giving any details about which deductions he'll eliminate to give those massive tax cuts for himself.

Just like a vulture he plans to let the Paul Ryan budget kill the middle class and then feast on the corpse with tax cuts that shift the burden to everyone but the super rich.

The man makes me sick.

Are You Better off?

The question that's being asked now by Republicans in the media is none other than the famous question asked by Ronald Reagan over thirty years ago. Are you better of now than you were four years ago? It's a great question, straightforward, easy, but very difficult to answer for an incumbent politician during a bad economy.

Graph Taken From Thinkprogress.org

Which is why the Romney campaign picked a perfect time to ask. With unemployment at an 8.2% national average, public sector employees suffering continued layoffs or pay freezes, the median household incomes for the middle class have lost ground, union membership is at the lowest in history. , gasoline is over $4 a gallon and food prices continuing to rise, not to mention the fact that though we've had job growth, many of those jobs are part time or low wage, this question seems to destroy any hope of Obama winning a second term, except  for this one caveat.

These things are directly attributed to Republican policies.

Yeah, they built that.

Over the past thirty years since Ronald Reagan, Republican administrations, with help from Democrats have aggressively campaigned against public workers, unions, social safety net programs, taxes on the wealthy and regulation on financial institutions. These policies have lead to right to work legislation, which decreased the power of unions to collectively bargain and have cut off funding that is used to elect pro-labor candidates. A relentless media campaign against so called "union bosses" have turned the people who would benefit from labor unions against them. Because of all these factors unions no longer have the power to strike effectively, and since the recession have become even weaker due to the availability of unemployed workers or the from the threat of relocating overseas.

So because of the decline of labor unions we see see a decline in income.

Another Republican policy that has led to one of the many problems we see today is deregulation. Republicans are the champions of letting business do whatever it wants, especially when it comes to the finance industry. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999 significantly stripped financial regulation away and eventually led to the creation of the Too Big too Fail banks that merged lending with risky investment banking. To be fair Bill Clinton, a Democrat signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law.

Then there's the tax cuts, combined with increased military spending and constant warfare, that has led to massive deficits under Bush, have caused many states to cut social programs for the poor in order to keep those tax cuts as well as funding for the big programs, Social Security, and Medicare.

These Republican policies of cutting taxes on the super wealthy, and regulation on the banks that will cause another wall street collapse from risky gambling like in 2008, not punishing corporations that send jobs overseas, and getting rid of programs that help the poor and middle class are extremely unpopular with regular people.

Which is why we didn't see any mention of policy at this years Republican National Convention, most of it was pie in the sky pandering and good ol' fashioned Democrat bashing and lots of blame for the bad economy. These things conveniently skirt around the fact that there are a group of people who better off now than four years ago.

Well surely corporate profits hitting all time highs while wages stagnate are reasons we should throw out the incumbent president, right?

Wrong

These are the exact same people a Romney administration would benefit. The whole Romney plan involves cutting taxes for the wealthy & corporations, deregulation, and cutting the social safety net for those who need it.

And it wouldn't even be revenue neutral.

Graph Taken from Moveon.Org

Let's not forget too that we tried tax cuts and deregulation during the Bush years, and it led to massive deficits, modest job growth, and oh yeah, a giant recession!

We all also have to look at how the country itself is doing as compared to four years ago. In 2008 the economy was in free fall, but was turned around after the stimulus.

There's no mistaking the fact that yes, things are not great now, but they are getting better, slowly.

But Romney and the Republicans if they win intend to go back to the same policies that caused the recession but on steroids.

I don't know about you but I don't want to look back four years from now in a Romney presidency and think "Yeah I was totally better off under Obama. Now I'm just fucked."

Think about it.

The Bain Files: a look into Mitt Romney

Before I start, I want to give full credit to the guys at Gawker for digging up this story. It's an amazing piece that shows just how the wealthy shield their money from U.S. taxes so that they pay more, and we pay less.

For weeks the media has been asking to see Mitt Romney's tax returns, to see just where he stores his vast wealth from U.S. taxation and as a result of that, just how much he actually paid in taxes compared to those who would be voting for him.

Although the Romney's have consistently said no to "You people" when it comes to the state of their finances;  citing that whatever they release is so bad that it will just give the Obama campaign more ammunition to use against them, despite that fear, just the fact that they will not even provide transparency has led to many people into speculating about what Mitt is actually hiding; if anything.

Just so happens it seems to be worse for him than any of us realized.

There is so much information in those Bain files and I can admit that it is too much for me to sit down and read at one time, I am not a tax guy, but I know a fraud when I see it.

I also happen to know a little thing about hypocrisy.

But what really has struck me is the fact that his investments in the Caymans were strictly made to avoid U.S. taxes.

"The Partnership is a qualified intermediary and intends to conduct it operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources.... Under the current laws of the Cayman Islands, there are no income, estate, transfer, sales, or other Cayman Islands taxes payable by the Partnership." 

How can Romney make the case that he wants to invest in America and help American business when his businesses are all based in shell corporations that go out of their way to avoid U.S. taxes?

Another way Mitt has avoided paying taxes is using something called an Equity Swap, essentially an agreement to transfer the losses and gains on a particular asset or set of assets without actually transferring ownership. These help offshore hedge funds avoid paying taxes by disguising who owns the stock in order to help clients avoid a withholding tax. 

Like I said, I don't quite get how it works, but it's already seems pretty sketchy. 

So how is all this stuff actually relevant? 

This shows the type of character that Mitt Romney is, a ruthless businessman that does everything in his power to make every last penny. He's calculating, cold and efficient. He's willing to invest in things that he publicly opposes, like cigarette companies and casinos, and even a company that disposes of aborted fetuses.

So much for Pro-life.

All of this shows that Mitt Romney is as moral as the corporations he owns, not intrinsically good, not completely bad, but amoral. As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks always says. Corporations are amoral machines, their only purpose is to make as much money as possible. So to is Romney, only out to make the most money the best way he can, and the only thing left for him to do in order to maximize profit, is to become president and ensure taxes on himself and his businesses are the lowest possible. He is the embodiment of the corporation.

So when you think about the election and where Mitt Romney's real motives lie you have to realize two things. It's not about leadership, it's not about America. 

It's about money.

In case you missed it you can find the Gawker Article here.

Flat Tax: Flatly Unfair

So I had an interesting discussion this morning with a conservative, a nice fellow overall but he had some rather poor notions about certain things our government is doing. Now I can go on about the poor things our government is doing right now but that's a different article for a different day.

Our discussion grazed the topic of spending, debt and welfare programs, specifically Pell Grants. As a college student and someone who doesn't have a full time job yet I depend on Pell grants to help offset the costs of college when I graduate. While talking about these programs that help the poor we eventually made our way into taxes. I mentioned to him that Mitt Romney paid only 13% in taxes in the returns that he has released, and under the Romney/Ryan plan he proposed people like Mitt would only pay a whopping 0.82% in taxes. This is only for people making over 1 million dollars a year and by dropping capital gains taxes to zero. Ultimately benefiting the richest among us at the expense of everyone else.

He preceded to tell me that I was mad at Romney for his success, and that taxing rich people is a "punishment" for their success.

I'm always astounded how a larger tax rate on millions of dollars is a punishment, I'd love to be in the position to be punished the way the wealthy supposedly are. Give me 20 Million and then tax me at 50%, who cares I'd still have 10 MILLION dollars.

If you can't live comfortably off $10 Million then there is something wrong with you, and it's not the tax code.

And after he uttered that little right wing talking point gem, he said something along the lines of; "and that's why we need a flat tax, so everyone pays the same."

Everyone pays the same?

I've heard this argument before, and it always bugs me, simply because it's a distorted version of fairness that is so simple, so easy to believe but in reality makes no sense and doesn't account for the massive inequality it would create. Just like other right wing policies I know of.

A flat tax is not a fair tax, and it's not something that works in reality, at least not if you want a strong middle class. It makes the poor pay more, and the rich pay less. The rates may seem fair, but the impact is disproportionate. The rich will simply get richer and the poor, poorer.

Not only that but the loss of revenue from the rich paying less will not be made up by the broadening of the tax base. This will lead to massive cuts in social programs that also impact the poor as they are the ones who rely on those programs.

Talk about kicking people when they're down, all so Mitt Moneybags Romney can get a tax cut?

Fuck that.

The poor: Silent Minority

Today I want to share a topic that is rather close to me, Poverty. I choose to write about this because I am one of the 46 Million people who live under the poverty line here in America.

With the 2012 election season now in full bloom this is the best time to bring this issue to the forefront of our politics. Before I get into the politics and policy aspects of this, I want to share some of my personal story.

As a Michigan resident, I knew for a long time that we were the car making capital of the country. Detroit was the motor city, home of the big three. So much of our local economy was based on manufacturing, mostly car parts, but there were other industries too.

My first job out of high school was at Electrolux building refrigerators, my father worked his way up the ladder, from the factory to the office. From hourly to salary. No I didn't get any special treatment, nor did I want any. I worked as hard as any other person there. I was a temp for the summer, and ended up not getting asked to come back the next summer, (though I already had another job elsewhere) so it didn't bother me.

My next job was at a union shop making truck parts, hitches and bumpers for the big automakers. I worked there a good few years making good money, but health problems related from the smoke ended that as I was fired for too many health related absences, they no longer accepted doctors notes from numerous visits related to breathing trouble. I was also in school then and when I lost my job I had to drop out and now I still have the bill to pay for that.

A couple of minimum wage jobs later I found myself in a non union plastic injection molding plant working for $10 an hour.

What does my work history have to do with poverty?

Quite a bit actually.

Not because I had been part of the working poor, I made enough money in those jobs by myself to stay just over the poverty line, but because those jobs have become less and less available now. Electrolux moved to Mexico, leaving 3,000 people without work, the bumper shop went bankrupt and was bought out by a foreign corporation who closed at least one the two shops in the area, and everywhere else factory jobs have  reduced pay and benefits for workers, often relying on temp services that pay minimum wage up to $8.25 an hour for the same work I was paid $10/hr for years earlier.

Not to mention my last job laid me off after I was hurt during work hours, I was making around $9 building pontoon boats. I like many there got the job through a temp agency. After being hurt, and laid off, I realized the only chance I had for a better future was to try college again.

So I here I am, a college student, racking up debt, living with my wife on $12,000/yr with $93 a month in food stamps, sure I could be eligible for more, but I would have to drop school.

Like many using the safety net to get by, I worked for a living, paid into the system, have had some hard luck and health problems that have forced me to retrain and retool, not to mention take on massive debt, and turn down further assistance in order to be successful in the future.

Yet according to the GOP people like me who are poor are simply lazy, we just want our welfare checks so we don't have to work.

This leads me to a very excellent encounter that happened last night when I had the opportunity to speak to Tanya Wells on Facebook. For any of you #Uppers fans out there, you may have seen the wonderful segment in which she shares her story about going from $100k a/year to just $18k due to the recession. After seeing her story I noticed that we find ourselves in similar situations, having to depend on student loans, and food assistance while going to school and having to turn down other programs so we can continue training in an effort to get good middle class jobs when we graduate.

We also felt the same demonization from the political class, from being called lazy on twitter and on other social media, or that we should just try harder to find work, despite the fact that its hard to even get a call back from prospective employers. (My last interview was a couple weeks ago, damned if I didn't try to impress him with examples of my work.)

We also spoke about getting the rest of us poor people to band together to fight for the benefits that sustain hardworking people like us who are trying to get that training to get back in the job market. That involves voting, and becoming more involved in matters of policy, as well as fighting back against the rhetoric of being called welfare queens, lazy, & people who don't want to work but stay home, smoke pot and collect handouts from the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I maintain honors in my classes and Mr. Wells, Tanya's husband is maintaining a 3.98 GPA!

It's these things people need to know.

So earlier I mentioned I would get into the policy aspect of poverty.

Well for starters the Romney/Ryan plan for the budget calls for cutting 62% of the funding for services that help people like me and Mrs. Wells, that includes food stamps, pell grants, and Medicaid. Not to balance the budget mind you, but for tax cuts for people like Romney. In fact Romney would benefit immensely from his own tax plan as he would only a pay a 0.82% tax rate.

So while the poor people like me, would bear the brunt of massive austerity, Romney would become that much richer. How does this happen?

Because people ignore the poor, we do not have money to contribute to superPACs, we do not have connections. It's also much easier to blame the poor for being poor, because people don't like to think they can become poor. People like to think "Hey I work hard, I won't lose my job if I keep working hard, those poor people didn't work hard enough so that's why they're poor, that wont be me." It's easier to demonize people than to fix the system, easier to be selfish than to to pay it forward and help those who need it.

Also take into account that because of Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich, many think the poor are just welfare queens, taking your hard earned money because they don't want to work.

This rhetoric works, it makes us turn on each other, while they shift more and more money to the top from everyone else, squeezing the middle class which makes them blame the poor even more. It's genius really, making the middle class and the poor fight while robbing us both to enrich the top.

This is why we need to stop fighting each other, and start protecting each other by ensuring safety net programs and encourage college training, and vocational schools so the poor can move up to the middle class, and the people who fall from the middle class can climb right back up. We can do this, we can afford it. After all we apparently can afford to subsidize oil companies that are the most profitable industry in the world right?

We also have to realize that we can all end up like Tanya and I, and only then will we elect those who will try to save the safety net for everyone.

Lyin' Ryan: Why the GOP goldenboy, is a hypocrite.

One week, it's been one week since the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP choice, and just like Sarah Palin, it seems Ryan has not been well vetted.

Which is why videos like this have been showing up lately.

Videos like these show how much Ryan was railing for stimulus during the last Administration to help his own district. There have also been letters to the energy department where Ryan asks for money from the stimulus to help create jobs.

I thought Paul Ryan hated stimulus. Apparently only when Barack Obama does it.

There are numerous articles and videos of Paul Ryan calling Keynesian economic measures a failure, and waste. Yet because of these measures and despite the debunked myths spread by the right. the economy dug itself out of a free-fall.

These Republicans just keep getting more brazen in their absolute hypocrisy. Yesterday Paul Ryan even made a nice trip to Florida to speak to some seniors, seemingly guaranteeing their Medicare benefits while throwing everyone under 55, under the bus. That is a Mitt Romney style pander, he learned from the best. What is worse about this, and Chris Hayes pointed this out on his show, that Medicaid under Romney/Ryan would be massively cut, and those same seniors he pandered to today, often rely on Medicaid to cover what Medicare does not.

Fail.

Paul Ryan is hypocritical in others way too. He once touted Ayn Rand as someone who got him into politics and helped form his belief system, as well as having his Catholic beliefs influence his policies. Both of which are absurd. Ayn Rand, was an Atheist, no problem there right, except that Paul Ryan is a Catholic, who believes that his religious morals should be a bigger part of government. Especially on matters of abortion and contraception. Which is completely the opposite of Rands view on religion.

Rand even states that, “[Faith] is a sign of a psychological weakness. . . I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows.  That’s what you’re doing with the idea of God.”

When people began to point him out on his hypocrisy Ryan began to run from Ayn Rand, saying that he didn't know her philosophy until later and complete disagrees with her objectivism.

So what about his Catholic beliefs? You know the moral center of his policies. Like feeding the poor, clothing the naked blah blah blah. Surely he calls for increased benefits to help the poor like food stamps and unemployment insurance and medical care right? Except he doesn't. His plan cuts 62% of funding for programs that actively help the poor, and shifts the money into....tax cuts for people like Mitt Romney, who would pay a whopping 0.82% tax rate on his $20 million fortune.

Oops!

His budget is so out of step with the beliefs of the Catholic church that there are a group of Nuns,  have called his budget "immoral".

Go get him nuns.

So if Paul Ryan doesn't lead by his faith in the Church, or his so called admiration for Ayn Rand, who does he work for?

Those who pay him. The Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, and other super rich people who have nothing better to do than figure out ways to make more money off the backs of the poor and middle class.

At least there's good news for Paul Ryan, he has made a friend of Mitt Romney, who he shares so much in common with, at least after they both lose badly in November they'll have plenty of time to go Jet Ski-ing together, hell maybe Ryan can get Romney on the P90X program. Move over Arnold, here comes Muscle Mitt.

Libertarians: GOP drones minus the culture war

It was only a matter of time until I came after the Ron Paul revolution. It's kind of sad because in quite a few ways libertarians are an ugly breed of both Liberals and Conservatives, shunned by Liberals and existing as the red headed stepchild of the conservative movement and yet, people my age seem to find them so endearing.

Libertarianism marries the best of the free thinking Liberal ideas of gay rights, anti-war, pro drug legalization, and get rid of big brother watching you and stay out my business sentiment. Because what Liberal enjoys being watched by the Government and harassed for no reason right? It also combines the worst of conservative top-down economics that have killed our economy, stalled wages, and polluted our air and water (see fracking) for 30 years.

The Libertarian premise is simple, cut taxes, cut government, let everyone do what they want, and somehow magically everyone becomes responsible, altruistic, wealthy and super happy.

Really?

Libertarianism is actually quite a selfish doctrine. The main tenet is about advancing the self and nothing else, no collective roads or bridges, everyone is out for themselves. If you Fuck up then its your fault, your responsibility, and if you need help that's just too bad because why should I give up what's mine to help you? Taxes are considered a punishment on everyone, and therefore should be as low as possible, for everyone.

Yeah, just what Exxon Mobil needs; another tax cut.

Libertarians believe that you alone have the power to make your own destiny as long as you work hard. If you succeed you did so because you were awesome, you work harder then others, you were smarter, and you had no one to thank for your success but you.

Let me a blow a hole in that load of BS

You do have the power to succeed, but you only learned what you needed to know to succeed by going to a school, maybe a public, maybe a private school. But you had a teacher that also went to school, spent his or her money on college to learn the things they ended up teaching you. Sometimes those teachers used their own money to provide supplies, sometimes they spent time with you after school to help you with those pesky geometry problems you had a hard time with. Sometimes they even inspired you.

Now we also cannot forget the school itself, built with the pure evil that is socialism. Its socialist buses picked you up from your house for free. The school had free water fountains, and heating in the winter. If you were poor you had free lunches. Remember those monkey bars you played on all the time? Socialism.

Odds are you lived on a street with a paved road that allowed you to get to your first job. You had electricity from power lines laid by the government, you had clean running water from public aquifers that you could drink and bathe in. You had inspectors making sure your food was not toxic or infected with E. Coli. If you own a business that uses the Internet, you should thank the Federal government for laying the foundation for it.

All of that stuff helped you survive, and thrive, so you could focus on learning and working hard to get where you are today. It's a collective effort, everyone gets the same basic foundation in which to succeed, of course people are more successful due to the effort they put in but we all have to pay for these simple things like roads, bridges, schools, firefighters, cops, teachers, food inspectors, power lines and all the other infrastructure we use.

The argument from Libertarians is "Why punish people for being successful." I ask, how is paying more taxes on having more money a punishment? If you have more money you're already better off than someone with less, so if we take a fair amount from someone with a larger income, and use it to help someone who has less live a better life, or become successful himself then what's the harm. It's not as if we ask millionaires to give up all their wealth in taxes, they're entitled to a large share of the wealth they earned.

But, and here's the but, the wealthy have more, and have used more resources to get wealthy. So why shouldn't they pay more? If you ask someone who makes 20 million a year to pay 5 million, they still have 15 million, that's an incredible amount of money. More than enough to survive extremely comfortably. Even if you ask them to pay 15 million out of 20 million in taxes, they still have 5 million. Compare that to the guy who makes $60,000 a year. That is over $4.4 Million a year more that the rich guy still has compared to the middle income guy. That is roughly 73 times more money a year that the wealthy person makes in the same amount of time. And that is even after taxing the shit of the rich guys initial 20 million.

Let that one sink in

After seeing those numbers I don't understand how anyone can see that a progressive tax system on the wealthy is punishment. Hell I wish I was rich, I'd gladly take that punishment if it meant I made 73 times more than a middle class wage earner!

Libertarianism is nothing but a right wing tool to bring in those people who uncomfortable with the GOPs culture war but want to continue the economic policies of more tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation. So why are so many kids my age enthralled at this? It's all about messaging, you tell these young college kids that they're awesome because they worked hard and tell them that they'd be rich if only the government would get out of their way. Throw in some stuff about Pot, and why they shouldn't have to help the lazy (poor) or the people who didn't save for retirement (seniors) and you get all these 20 somethings who can't wait to willingly fuck themselves over in the future because they think they know it all.

Well played Ayn Rand, well played.

Should The Presidency Require Business Experience?

In a word, No.

In two words, fuck no!

Let me explain why this makes no sense to me.

Conservatives argue that in order to be a good president that you must have a background in business, and some even say you need military experience.

That's utter crap, here's why.

Government is not a business, it doesn't run as a business and it shouldn't ever be run as a business. See people tend to forget that a government is really a contract between the government, and the governed.

Business however is different, it exists to make profit, usually by providing a good or service in exchange for something of value. They're not really similar at all.

To prove my point I turn to the founding fathers.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

John Adams: Thoughts on Government, 1776

I love that quote.

Business exists to enrich the owner of said business, or as John Adams says, the private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.

What I am saying is if government is ran by a businessman, and is run like a business, it wouldn't favor the common good, it would work for the interests of a few people, a few wealthy, powerful people.

That's called an Aristocracy.

Another difference between government and business is how they work. Businesses are run by a CEO, usually put there through a board of investors (this is obviously in the case of a large business) Those investors let the CEO do what he needs to do to make money and will not usually interfere too much so long as the business is profitable.

Government works through a careful system of checks and balances so no branch gains more power over the other, there is no de facto leader in a government as each branch depends on others in order to get things done. If the business loses money it cannot function, and must downsize or run the risk of not being able to pay its stockholders, creditors and workers. Government however is able to run a debt and continue, not indefinitely of course but nonetheless it can function while running a deficit without going under.

Of course it's best to run make a habit of running deficits, which is why we have taxes, unlike business. I think Mr. Hamilton addressed this one...

"As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine."

Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801
So why shouldn't business experience be required to be president as Mr. Romney had once said? Because they are different. They are run differently and have different goals and ways to get there. One should never run government like a business, one should never even consider it, and one should most definitely NOT merge government with business.

I think there is a word for that.