Tag Archives: taxes

Thanks, “Moe” and Gary!!

By Edith Morgan

I have to confess: I do not watch the Worcester City Council meetings every Tuesday and do not study the agenda religiously every week. I DO read the summary in the following day’s paper and often hear reports from people who were there. So I was especially interested in two items put on the agenda, one by councilor Gary Rose, the other by councilor Moe Bergman – both addressing some issues about the city’s property taxes.

As the city council has 45 days from their October 21st meeting to work on next year’s tax rate, these two items are timely.  They were brought to my attention by Joan Crowell, of the AWARE coalition, who does so much great research and publicizing about all aspects of the city’s tax rate.

Moe Bergman submitted item 10i – “request City Manager request City Assessor report to the City council the tax impacts …if the city council were to adopt M.G. L. Chapter 59 sections 5C and 5i relative to residential and commercial tax exemptions at both a 5% and 10% value of the parcel exemption.”

I do not have the space here to go into details but, briefly, this exemption would enable owners of lower-valued homes to pay less $ and would have owners of higher priced homes to pay more $. A number of Massachusetts communities (including Boston, which has been doing this since 1983) are already making use of this state law. AWARE asks: “WHY NOT WORCESTER?” (for full details, go to their e-mail address, aware@earthlink.net.)

Here is a chance to grant some small measure of relief to owner-occupied homes, without harming the total city budget. The commercial tax exemption would apply to small businesses (with fewer than 10 employees) and valued at less than one million dollars.  This law has been on the books since 1993. Why has not Worcester taken advantage of this opportunity?

On that same agenda, Gary Rosen submitted two orders: 11a and 11b –whereby he requested that the Worcester City Manager look into the ”advisability and the feasibility” of implementing the Senior Tax Work-Off program – a program that would enable qualified seniors who were approved to do volunteer work for the city, thereby earning a reduction in  their property taxes.  A number of Massachusetts are already doing this and have set up rules based on the state guidelines, spelled out in MGL Chapter 59-5K.

Gary’s item 11b reads: “ Request City Manager inform City Council on which, if any, tax exempt parcels of land in Worcester need to be reviewed to ensure that they do qualify for tax-exempt status.” This item asks that parcels of land purchased by non-profits for future use  be checked to see if they are occupying the parcels for charitable purposes within the specified two-year period. (If they are not, the parcels become taxable, at least until they begin using them for charitable purposes.)

These items will be referred to city council subcommittees – so, watch for that discussion and voice your opinion.

A final word: Fiscal Year 2014 was supposed to be a Revaluation Year. Our next revaluation year is scheduled for FY2017. Keep your eyes open …

While everyone bashes …

By Rosalie Tirella

… UMASS for being a nonprofit that has the temerity to buy property adjacent to property it sits on, property that it intends to develop for cutting edge life sci research, a move that will enable it to keep Worcester in the bio tech loop (why lose everything to Cambridge/Boston?), property that will stay on the city tax rolls if leased to for-profit bio tech companies … we say: Why are you slamming UMASS?

BACK OFF!!!

Stop railing against UMASS! Stop bashing UMASS when, for all these years, it has given the city a very classy glow. A boost to our sometimes dowdy blue collar reputation. Some sparkly tall buildings that draw thousands of people a day, that hum with human activity, provide good paying jobs to thousands of local folks, provide first-rate health care to thousands of sick/dying people. UMASS makes us a city that can attract and keep very smart academic types, some of whom have won Nobel Prizes for their scientific research, we all should remember. UMASS is a great state university/research system, from its flagship university at Amherst, to UMass Lowell, to our UMass hospital/medical center, to the Great Brook Valley Health Center and the Family Health Center, Community Health Link, to the hospital’s staffing of the Ronald McDonald health care mobile and all the other free or low-cost medical services provided to struggling families in the Worcester area, to all the other great things our state university system does for Massachusetts. This state, unlike California or Michigan, does not know how to respect and support its state university system. Call us elitist Mass.

In Worcester’s case call us plain old cheap.

Why is everyone slagging a great local institution?

Bay State’s 99% to Host [NO!]mination Convention!

As Mitt Romney delivers his nomination acceptance speech at the RNC Convention in Tampa…

Bay State’s 99% to Host [NO!]mination Convention to Speak Out on Failed Romney-Bain Agenda

Unemployed workers, seniors, healthcare advocates, Bain employees, low-income and middle class families and others join together to tell the truth about Romney’s record

ROXBURY – Just hours before Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivers his official acceptance speech in Tampa, working families and seniors back home in Boston will gather to tell the real story of Romney’s record as Massachusetts governor and CEO of Bain Capital. Held today at 5:30pm at Roxbury’s Hibernian Hall, the [NO!]mination Convention will feature unemployed workers, seniors, healthcare advocates, employees of Bain-owned companies and other low-income and middle class families who have suffered under Romney’s failed leadership in the public and private sectors.

Romney has built his candidacy on a host of what he calls ‘success stories’ on his watch in government and business. But his record as Governor of Massachusetts paints an entirely different picture – one where constituents were saddled with more than $2.6 billion in new debt and saw the state fall to 47th in job creation. Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs during Romney’s tenure, in addition to call center and other state jobs he outsourced to India. Those who toiled under Romney’s Bain Capital fared even worse, asthousands were sent to the unemployment lines as their jobs were shipped overseas to China and India. The few employees that remained were subjected to a ‘worker-exploitation-for-profit’ model that slashed pay and benefits, reduced hours, forced off-the-clock work and committed outright wage theft.

“Those of us who call Massachusetts home were the first to see the kind of harm Mitt Romney and Bain Capital can cause,” said Katrina Fitzpatrick, a Dorchester resident who worked for Bain-owned Dunkin’ Donuts for more than 15 years. “That’s why it’s so important that we speak out and warn the rest of the country – people need to know the truth about the Romney-Bain agenda.”

Today’s [NO!]mination Convention follows days of protests at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, where Fitzpatrick and local Bain workers joined hundreds of others in speaking out against the harmful effects of the Romney-Bain economic agenda.

WHAT: Massachusetts workers and seniors host [NO!]mination Convention to tell the real story of Romney’s failed record as governor and Bain CEO.

WHO: Employees of Bain-owned companies, unemployed workers, seniors, healthcare advocates, low-income and middle class families, and a host of faith and community leaders

WHEN: TODAY! Thursday, August 30 – 5:30 to 7:00 PM (Program to begin around 5:45PM)

WHERE: Hibernian Hall, 184 Dudley Street – Roxbury

 

Five things you won’t hear Scott Brown say (i.e. the truth) about his tax record

By Jason A. Stephany, MassUniting

At a noon press conference in Randolph on Tuesday, US Senator Scott Brown delivered what his office claimed would be a “major policy speech” on taxes. To the surprise of few in Massachusetts, Brown’s remarks turned out to be nothing more than the stereotypical, failed tax rhetoric of his Republican colleagues in Washington. More telling were the facts Brown failed to mention about his voting record on taxes. Here are five true statements we didn’t hear from the junior senator in Randolph:

1. “I voted to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.”

Scott Brown voted to filibuster the Creating American Jobs & Ending Offshoring Act, a bill would have ended tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs or build plants and offices offshore to replace American facilities. The vote came as thousands of American workers face impending layoffs while training their replacements from China, India, and elsewhere. (US Senate roll call vote #242, 9/28/10)

 

2. “I gave $24 billion of your tax dollars to Big Oil.”

In the face of drastic budget cuts, Scott Brown voted three times to give more than $24 billion in taxpayer funds to the oil industry over the next decade. The top five Big Oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell – are amongst the most profitable corporations in the world, posting $137 billion in profits in 2011 alone. (US Senate roll call votes #187 6/15/10; #72, 5/17/11; #63, 3/29/12)

 

3. “I’d really like to take more money out of your paycheck.”

Scott Brown voted to filibuster legislation to extend the payroll tax cut for working families – holding low and middle income workers hostage to shield the wealthiest Americans from a small surtax on income over $1 million. In effect, Brown cast a deciding vote to raise taxes on 113 million working families. In Massachusetts, the surtax would have affected just 0.6% of taxpayers with an average income of more than $2 million. (US Senate roll call vote #219, 12/1/11)

4. “I support tax breaks for millionaires…just not middle class or low-income families.”

Three times in 2010 and again in 2012, Scott Brown voted to kill measures that would extend tax cuts for the middle class. Like his vote for payroll tax hikes, Brown used the same rationale to justify his votes to raise taxes on middle and low-income families: those making $250,000 to $1 million or more each year shouldn’t have to pay their fair share like the rest of his Massachusetts constituents. (US Senate roll call votes #258 & #259, 12/4/10; #275, 12/15/10; #184, 7/25/12)

 

5. “I filibustered tax credits and loans that help small businesses grow and create jobs.”

Despite his claims of supporting job creators, Scott Brown repeatedly filibustered and opposed major legislation that helps small businesses grown and create jobs. Brown twice voted to filibuster the Small Business Jobs & Credit Act – a bill that connected growing small businesses to credit through community banks and offered significant tax credits to small firms that create American jobs. When his filibuster failed, Brown voted again to kill the legislation. The Massachusetts Bankers Association stated that failure to act on the bill “would be a missed opportunity that our struggling economy cannot afford.” (US Senate roll call votes #218 & #221, 7/29/10; #237, 9/14/10)

 

Per usual, Senator Brown took no questions from constituents or reporters, ducking out a back door immediately following his speech. But anyone who takes issue with Brown’s out-of-step voting record on taxes – or any other issue, for that matter – may contact his office at (617) 565-3170.

Mitt Romney’s tax returns: an InCity Times investigative report

 

Mitt Romney’s trusts invested in Japanese automakers, European alternative energy companies, foreign pharmaceuticals, several French companies, and took a tax write off of $1.4 million for donating to his own charitable foundation. And much of Romney’s funds were invested through Goldman Sachs, the controversial Wall Street firm that received $10 billion in federal TARP money and hundreds of billions of dollars in federal loans. One thing’s for certain – Mitt Romney did not invest as an American economic nationalist. He put his money where got the most bang for his buck, often in overseas bank accounts investments.

By Steven R. Maher

            Mitt Romney had good reasons to hide his tax returns. It provides a fascinating look at a man who would be an American President, but often put his money to work in foreign companies that directly compete with American manufacturers. While the American automobile industry was struggling to survive, Mitt was investing in Toyota and Mitsubishi. While campaigning for the country to free itself from the dependency of foreign oil, Romney, acting through trusts, was buying stock in foreign manufacturers of alternative energy sources. And in something remarkable, Romney gave $1.4 million to his own “charitable” foundation and reported it as a deduction on his tax return.

            Romney’s tax returns, released Tuesday January 24, 2012, show heavy reliance on the Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, which received $10 billion in federal TARP money and hundreds of billions of dollars in federal loans. The TARP money and loans, later repaid by Goldman Sachs, took place around the same time Romney invested with the firm.         

Well structured finances

 

            First, a brief explanation about how Romney structured his finances to minimize his tax liabilities and provide for the lowest possible tax on his estate when it passes to his heirs. Not surprisingly, Romney appears to have greatly benefited from sophisticated legal and accounting advice.

            Romney set up three trusts to house his property: the “Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust” (the most fascinating of the group); the “W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust”); the “Ann B. Romney Blind Trust”; and the “Tyler Charitable Foundation” a “Nonexempt Charitable Foundation Treated as a Private Foundation.”

            Theoretically a “blind trust” functions much like a super Pac – the owner of the assets, like the Presidential beneficiary of a super Pac, has plausible denial ability for knowledge of the Trustees’ investment decisions, which are supposedly made only by the trustees. Hence the description as a “blind” trust.

            It is unknown if the “Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust” is a blind trust. It does not state that on the front of the trust tax return filing. If it was established in 1995, the tax law at that time may not have required it. This trust is the most interesting of the four entities Romney published on his campaign, because many of the foreign investments reviewed in this article were made through that trust.

            We sent two emails to Romney’s press office asking if the “Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust” was a blind trust, and if it was, for documentation proving that. No response was received from the Romney campaign.

            Romney defended his investments in the January 26, 2012 Presidential debate by saying that all the purchases were done by a Trustee, that he did not know about them, and that his trusts purchased stocks through mutual funds rather than directly from the companies. But Romney did sign the tax returns, and he at least knew about where his money went at that point. It is hard to believe that Romney, who has campaigned on his abilities at as a CEO, did not know what was being done in his name with his money.

            The sole Trustee of all four Romney entities is R. Bradford Malt of the prestigious Boston law firm Ropes & Gray. All four entities’ tax reports were done by the same accountant, Daniel P. Feheley of the equally prestigious accounting firm Price, Waterhouse & Coopers. All four entities had their cash parked at Goldman Sachs and several purchased stock in the same companies, often selling stock on or within a few days or weeks of each other. Two of the trusts may have been “blind” and one a charitable foundation, but they seemed to make the same investment decisions at the same time.

            Romney funneled his income into these trusts, and through the trusts, back into the private tax return of his wife and himself. Why the trusts?

            All three of Romney’s trusts were “grantor trusts”, which Black’s Law Dictionary describes as follows: “A trust in which the grantor transfers or conveys property in trust for his own benefit alone or for himself or another.” Depending on the nature of the trust, Romney could have done this to transfer his property to his heirs or act as a tax shelter.

His own charity

 

            Romney’s tax return listed his income as follows:

            · Total income listed was $21,646,507. Of this, $3.295,727 was interest income, and $4,923,348 was dividends ($1.5 million from the “Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Trust” and $3 million from the “Ann D. Romney Blind Trust”).

            · Romney filed two self-employment Schedule Cs. The first was for $113,881 as a member of the Marriott International’s Board of Directors. Not bad for a part time job.

            · The second self-employment form filed was for author and speakers’ fees. Romney had income of $528,871 gross income for “author/speaking fees”. According to published press reports, $370,000 of this was for speaking fees, an amount Romney described as “inconsequential.”

            · Romney paid a total tax of slightly over $3 million on adjusted gross income of $21,646,507, an effective tax rate of 13.9%.

            · Romney received a tax refund of $1.6 million. You or I would probably grab such a refund, but Romney instead applied it to his 2011 taxes.

            Romney’s supporters make much of the fact that he gave more to charity than what he paid in taxes. They ignore the fact that a good part of Romney’s charity began at home. Of the money donated, $1,458,807 was from the “Ann Romney Blind Trust” to the “Tyler Charitable Foundation”, a non-cash transfer of “donated securities”. What Romney’s trustee or representative did was take money out of one Romney trust, put it into another Romney legal entity, take a $1.4 million deduction on his taxes, and maintained legal control of the transferred assets.

            This transaction probably took place only on paper, with the stroke of his accountant’s or trustee’s pen. Some paperwork was probably done to transfer the securities, but no cash left Romney’s control in making this donation.

            In terms of donating $1.4 million to himself, what did Romney know and when did he know it? At the time someone made the decision, or when he filed his tax returns? We asked that question of Romney’s press office twice by email and received no reply.

            If Romney made the biggest – and only donation – to the Tyler foundation, the foundation itself made $647,500 donations to various causes. The two largest donations were $145,000 to the Mormon Church and $100,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library. The Tyler foundation made several smaller donations to the medical institutions that treated his wife for cancer. Romney thought so well of Bush’s presidency that he prioritized his charitable donations to the 43rd President’s library over the medical institutions which saved his wife’s life.

Foreign investments

 

            The mainstream media has concentrated on Romney’s bank accounts in the Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Grand Cayman Islands. Why did Romney put his money there? Probably because the interest rates were higher and the tax rates lower than your typical American bank. If Romney had been an American economic nationalist, he would have put all his money into the U.S. banking system, where it would have been loaned back to his fellow Americans to buy homes, cars, or expand their private enterprises. But it wouldn’t have been as profitable.

            Romney did invest a lot of money in America. But at a time when the country is struggling with a critical balance of trade deficit, he put considerable portions of his investments into overseas banks and companies.

            The real story is in the trusts through which Romney sheltered his wealth. Among his investments (many of which were done by the Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust):

            · Toyota and Mitsubishi. While American car companies were dying, Romney’s trust was putting his money into Japanese carmakers.

            · While saying America needs to develop green energy sources, Romney’s trusts invested in foreign alternate energy providers such as the Dutch wind power company Vestas Wind Systems and the Austrian Verbund AS, which gets 90% of its power from hydro-electricity.

            · Romney’s trusts have invested in numerous foreign pharmaceuticals and medical suppliers: the Dutch CSL Limited, the Dutch pharmaceutical Novo-Doris; and Fresno’s Medical Care, a German manufacturer of medical supplies.

            · Among the foreign high-tech companies Romney’s trusts bought and sold stock in were Turkcel Ietisim, a Turkish cell phone service provider and the British based Sky Broadcasting Group, a tele-communications provider.

            · The Romney trusts invested in numerous foreign banks: The Greek National Bank; the Brazilian banking groups Itau Unibanco and Intesta Sanpaolo; and several other large “emerging market” banking groups.

            · Your average Republican during the Bush era may have wanted to rename French fries “freedom fries” but that didn’t stop Romney’s trustee from investing in several French companies: LVMH Moet, which is a Paris based clothier; Schlumbegrer LTD, a French company that provides oil field services.

            · Romney has said he would crack down on Chinese trading practices, which have cost so many Americans their jobs. His 2010 tax returns show investments in several Chinese companies including the New Oriental Ed & Tech, and the China Life Insurance Company, formerly a state owned enterprise insuring 45% of the Red Chinese public. According to Wikipedia, New Oriental is a system of 40 private schools teaching English, set up originally to train graduate students – presumably so they could come here, attend the best graduate schools in the world, and take their education and technological skills back home from America to create jobs in China.

            · Romney’s accountant adroitly played all the legal strategies available to maximize his client’s gains from his foreign investments. Romney got a tax credit of $129,697 for the payment of foreign taxes. 

No economic nationalist

 

            Most of Romney’s money was invested through Goldman Sachs, a company that received $10 billion in funds from the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP). The Federal “Primary Dealer Credit Facility” loaned Goldman Sachs $589 billion in 2009, when Goldman Sachs was purchasing Romney some of the same stocks he sold for a profit in 2010.

What does the tax return say about Mitt Romney’s vision and foresight?

Romney must have known in 2009 that he would be running for President in 2012. He could have reasonably foreseen that at some point he would be pressured into releasing his tax returns. Romney would have been well advised in 2009 to Americanize his portfolio. He should have withdrawn his money from foreign banks and ordered his trustees to only invest in American companies. Romney then could have run as an economic nationalist who put the country’s welfare above his own financial well-being. Short term, it would have led to a reduction in income that would not affect Romney’s life style. Long term, it would have generated enormous political capital and averted the many questions raised by his 2010 tax return.

Great Presidents – George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan come to mind – tended to be visionaries who could foresee and proactively resolve problems facing the country. Obviously, Romney three years ago didn’t have the foresight to see the problems to be caused by how he handled his great wealth. The conclusion to be drawn from this is left for the reader to make.

Will it be Medicaid or millionaires? MA residents call on Senator Scott Brown to choose!

Boston – With the clock running out on the debt debate, US Senator Scott Brown has yet to state his position on more than $500 billion in proposed healthcare cuts. Medicaid recipients, providers and advocates were set to call the question today (Thursday) in front of Brown’s downtown Boston office!

Will It Be Medicaid or Millionaires?

Boston Residents called on Scott Brown to Choose

While politicians trade horses over the national debt in Washington, those directly affected in Massachusetts are demanding to know where their Senator stands on the critical issues in negotiation.

A coalition of local Medicaid recipients, providers and advocates gathered today to ask a simple question of US Senator Scott Brown: “Will you choose Medicaid or Millionaires?” The call comes after weeks of silence from Brown on a proposed $500 billion cut to healthcare – cuts that jeopardize vital Medical Assistance funding while tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy enjoy a vigorous defense by many in Brown’s own party.

“Medicaid allows me to live independently in my home, and I depend on that funding every single day,” said David Sandison of Waltham. “I deserve to know. Will Scott Brown support me or the millionaires?”

Sandison this morning joined Stacy Hart of the Boston Center for Independent Living, healthcare advocate Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, business owner Joseph Rotella and others who demanded answers from Brown on the issue of Medicaid funding.

Whatcha gonna do, Scott Brown?

This Tax Day, Make THEM Pay …a letter about April 18th from Michael Moore

Friday, April 15, 2011

Friends,

Do you wonder (like I do) what the tax accountants and executives are doing over at GE [General Electric] this weekend? Frantically rushing to fill out their IRS returns like the rest of us?

Hardly.

They’re taking the weekend off to throw themselves a big party and have a hearty laugh at all of us. It must really crack them up to see us like suckers scurrying around to make sure we report everything to Uncle Sam — and even send him a check, if necessary.

The joke’s on us, folks.

GE and tons of other corporations will have a tax bill for 2010 of ZERO.

GE had $14.2 billion in profits in 2010. Yet they will contribute NOTHING to the federal government while every last dime is soaked from us.

In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to corporations. Instead, they cut billions from “wasteful” programs that do “wasteful” things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and help the needy and our nation’s children.

It’s Democracy in reverse and it sickens me.

GE spends $20 million a year to lobby Congress to throw themselves this party.

But do you know what speaks louder than $20 million? 20 million votes! 20 million people, and more, standing together and taking to the streets. That starts now, with you.

This coming Monday, April 18th is Tax Day — and that’s the day when “we the people” will demand our country back from these corporations in events all across the country. MoveOn members — along with union, community, and environmental allies — will gather outside the headquarters and local offices of the biggest corporate tax dodgers to deliver tax bills from the American people. And we’ll demand that our leaders make these corporate deadbeats pay.

We’re doing this because we don’t buy into the Big Lie: that greedy teachers caused the crash on Wall Street! That the selfish firefighters sent millions of jobs overseas! That pregnant woman, infants, and children are sending us into deficit!

No, it was the big corporations that did this. It was the CEOs and the top 1% of the country. THEY brought on the mortgage crisis. THEY made off with trillions of dollars from our economy. THEY are systematically destroying the middle class. And THEY have bought and sold the very people elected to represent us!

On Monday, we will have something to say to Exxon, Chevron, and the big banks that crashed our economy and got billions in bailouts, like Citigroup and Bank of America, who pay little or no federal income tax. In fact, the IRS will likely give them a tax REBATE. If that doesn’t boggle your mind then nothing will.

The Tax Day events are about sending this message: We are coming after you, we are stopping you and we are going to return the money, jobs, and homes you stole from the people. This is your tipping point, Corporate America. And I, for one, am glad it’s going to happen this Monday.

If you’ve never been to an event like this before, this is the time. And don’t go alone, because none of us can win this fight by ourselves. Plus, it’s more fun and exciting to go along with friends and family to be part of real democracy in action — not the store-bought kind Big Business gets on Capitol Hill.

I really hope you can make it. This is our chance, my friends. Take the time on Monday to make your voice heard. I can guarantee you I will. Please join me.

editor’s note: to learn more about these protests and to find transportation to get to them, please go to MichaelMoore.com

InCity Times asks you to Vote NO on Question 3!

By John Monfredo, Worcester School Committee

“Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society”

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

They’re at it again! The Committee for Small Government has qualified to place another anti-tax question on the ballot Tuesday – this one to slash the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. These are the same people who brought us Question 1 in 2008, the initiative which the voters sensibly and soundly defeated – the repeal of the state income tax.

If passed, the Sales Tax Initiative would slice revenues by $2.5 billion a year on top of the billions in cuts already made during this recession.

How much is $2.5 billion?

It equals one-half of all state spending on our 1,900 public schools. Continue reading InCity Times asks you to Vote NO on Question 3!

Is bigger better?

By Richard Schmitt

When critics call President Barack Obama’s health reform plans “socialist” they often worry about the overwhelming power of government. The federal government is very powerful; the worry is justified. But if the same people then go on to say that health care should be in the hands of private business, they forget that private business also is often very large and even more powerful than the Feds.

Do you remember that we had to shell out almost a trillion dollars in tax money only last year to save the largest insurance company in the world, as well as Bank of America and other banks because they are “too big to fail”? Continue reading Is bigger better?