TAX BICYCLES?

 

Municipalities and States are broke. They need more income. Their primary source of revenue is taxation. New methods are constantly sought. It is like building the better mouse trap. Do it and get rich.

 

The taxation target this time is a tax on bicycles. The ordinary common two wheeler. A furor has arisen where it has been attempted. In the rare locations it has been adopted, the people have come to accept it.

 

The tax can take several forms. A one time tax at the time of purchase. In addition to whatever the sales tax is, of course. A set fee to be paid every year. These two are the most common. A decal or mini license is attached to the bicycle upon payment.

 

The taxing consideration has come to light because of Chicago's treatment of bicycles. Mayor Rahm Emanuel sees wisdom in bikes as a mode of transportation in a large busy city. His cry is drive bikes and not cars.

 

He has had miles of bike paths constructed. He has instituted a "grab and go" bicycle program whereby a person desiring to travel from point A to point B hops on a free bicycle at A and leaves it at B. Some one else is then free to use the bicycle.

 

Rahm believes there is less pollution to the environment, less traffic congestion, almost no wear and tear on the streets, and a healthier population.

 

Chicago even has mini plows to keep the bike paths snow free.

 

A Chicago council person recently suggested that the additional costs of plowing, maintenance and construction of bike paths should be borne by the bike riders. Her suggestion was a tax of $25 per year per bike.

 

Her words fell on deaf ears. A Chicago resident thought that if the bike tax were to become law, then the city should charge people a shoe tax to use the sidewalks.

 

Several states have tried to tax bicycles. Georgia, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont being the most recent. The attempts failed. Oregon's proposed law had a mean streak to it. Bicycles owned by children were to be taxed also.

 

Ed Orcutt is a Washington state legislator. He argued in support of the bicycle  tax on the grounds that bike riders pollute the environment. They ride hard resulting in an increased heart rate and respiration. As a result, bike riders produced more carbon dioxide than the dangerous emissions cars do. Orcutt sounds like some of our Washington, D.C. Congresspersons. Fruitcakes all. Orcutt is qualified to join their ranks.

 

In fairness, Orcutt said the tax would produce $10 million over 10 years and could be used to maintain roads.

 

Hawaii and Colorado Springs, Colorado have had bicycle taxes for years. A one time payment, the money going to bicycle infrastructure.

 

Worldwide, two nations come to mind.

 

Brazil intentionally has miles and miles of bike paths. So people can ride their bikes and view the beautiful ocean and magnificent foliage. Brazil has a one time tax at the time of purchase. The tax is 40.5 per cent of the cost of the bicycle. Wow! Automobiles sold in Brazil have only a 32 percent tax imposed.

 

The Nazis got into the act when they invaded Norway. There were many bike riders In Norway. Norway had imposed a bicycle tax in 1924 and the tax was still there when Hitler marched in. Norwegians were opposed to the tax. In an effort to win over the people, the Nazis eliminated the tax. It did them no good.

 

When I was 10 years old in Utica, N.Y., my parents bought me a bicycle. I was required to register it and get a metal license for the bike. My father took me to the fire station where the registration was done. It was a one time event. Registration was when you got the bike and never again. The cost was fifty cents. The purpose of the local law requiring the bike plate was not to raise money. It was to identify the bicycle in case of theft.

 

Some things governments should not do. Taxing bicycles is one of them. A Boston Tea Party of sorts could occur. Evidencing the wrath of an aroused people. Big trees from little acorns grow.

 

 

THEY DID NOT TELL US

My Catholic upbringing drummed into me the Jesuit difference between acts of commission and those of omission. Law school repeated the same principles.

Commission is doing an act that causes harm. Omission is failure to perform an act. Especially one that would be expected by a normal sane person in the ordinary course of events.

This column is concerned with omission. The culprit the United States mainstream media. The big guys. Television, newspapers and magazines. Those owned and controlled by major corporate conglomerates which include in their make up banks. The story to be told involves the apparent failure of the media to report news that might be unfavorable to their corporate owners.

The days of news people owning television, newspapers  and other media outlets are long gone.

Examine for example the ownership of the major television companies in the United States. NBC used to be owned by General Electric, then General Electric and Comcast, and now Comcast alone. ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Companies. CBS used to be owned by Westinghouse. It is now owned by National Amusements and Viacom. CNN is owned by Time Warner and Turner Broadcasting. Fox is owned by 21st Century Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's Fox entertainment Group.

The story to be told involves Iceland. It is a tale not heard by most Americans to this day. Only a handful were aware. I did not know.

Iceland had banking  problems of its own in 2008. The banks had inflated the value of Iceland's banks internationally. They screwed around with the numbers to make the banks look better than they actually were. Things caught up. The bubble burst. Most of the banks were heading for bankruptcy.

Does the too big to fail argument sound familiar? The government of Iceland wanted to bail the banks out. With taxpayer dollars, of course. The people of Iceland said no, emphatically no, and never.

A revolution occurred. It started on the same day in 2008 when Obama was being sworn in. The people took to the streets. The rebellion was called the "Pots and Pans Rebellion." The people were banging pots and pans together as they marched.

The Icelandic people were so vocal and adamant in their position of no bailout for the banks that three months later the entire government of Iceland resigned. The President and all of Parliament. The government had been taken down.

Did you hear any of this? See it reported on TV? Read it in the newspapers? Most Americans did not. At the same time, all of the rest of the world knew and were openly discussing it. It was front page news in all European newspapers. Foreign television was rampant with the details.CNN's European group reported everything as it happened. Not America's CNN. Silence.

Credit should be given where credit is due. The New York Times provided a small handful of piecemeal stories. Not front page stuff. The Times danced around the details. It reported that the fall of the government was caused by mayhem beyond Iceland's borders.

Note again that the U.S. media failed to report the street protests, the Pots and Pan revolution, and the resignation of the entire government.

A new government was elected. No time was wasted in correcting the situation. Iceland's feeling was that what had occurred should never happen again. Corporate greed could not be permitted to rear its ugly head ever again.

Recall the U.S. position that banks were too big to prosecute. Not in Iceland. They arrested and prosecuted bank officials and politicians alike. And sent them to jail. Just last week one of the bank fraud cases came to a conclusion. Four executives of the Kaupthing Bank were sentenced to jail. Without probation. One was the Chairman of the Board. Involved financial fraud. They had loaned an individual money to buy just over 5 per cent interest in the bank. A no no.

The Icelandic people believed their Constitution was ineffective. It no longer worked for the people. They wanted a new one. They put together a large number of citizens to rewrite the Constitution. People, not politicians. It took four years, but is now the law of the land. The primary thrust was to prohibit corporate fraud. They spelled it out in the Constitution. It was clear to them that corporate greed was destroying the country and had to be stopped.

While all this was going on in Iceland, where was the U.S. media? No word was heard from them. A cover up in form and substance. Why? It is thought by some including this writer that corporate ownership of the media some how influenced the news people from reporting what was happening in Iceland. The news was not in the best interests of the corporate conglomerates. Most of whom included banks in their ranks.

This silence was going on at same time the United States was experiencing its own bank problems. The U.S. bank mortgage frauds started coming to light in 2007. Imagine had the U.S. government been of the opinion as the people of Iceland that the banks were not too big to fail nor too hard to prosecute. The U.S. people had they known of Iceland's happenings might very well have acted as Iceland did. Protest, react to a government that was not responsive to the will of the people, jail the bankers and politicians who supported them, and rewrite a new Constitution that would not be so favorably interpreted by the courts in favor of corporations. I am confident that under such, corporations would not have been deemed persons as the U.S.Supreme Court did a few years ago where political contributions were involved.

The American people share in the blame. We stood around like puppets and believed what our leaders, including the President, were telling us. We did not question. We did not act. There is a lesson to be learned here.

What galls me is the banks continue to screw around to the detriment of the American public. They do what they want, when they want. I have always subscribed to the position that if just one major bank CEO was tried, convicted, and sent to jail, the rest would back off. However, our government has told us first the banks were too big to fail and then too big to prosecute.

What can I say? The impropriety is obvious. The media turned its back on the people's right to know. The difficult thing to accept is that they got away with it.

Everyone is defecating on the 99 per cent.

OIL! OIL! OIL!

Tora is the Japanese code word used on December 7, 1941 to indicate complete surprise had been achieved at Pearl Harbor. The sneak attack had been successful.

 

Oil was the cause/reason for the attack. Since 1937, Japan had been at war with China. The war was the Second Sino-Japanese War. Japan was succeeding. However, the war was eating up its reserves. Especially, oil. Japan's primary supplier of oil surprisingly was the United States. The U.S. had the capacity at the time to be a major world oil supplier. Japan had no oil its own.

 

The United States did not approve of Japan's aggression in China. Negotiations had been ongoing to convince Japan to back off. Japan would not.

 

Roosevelt decided a trade embargo was in order. The embargo was put in place. The United States stopped supplying Japan with oil and other raw materials.

 

Japan was in trouble. Oil and other materials were needed. If the United States embargo was permitted to continue, it not only would hurt Japan's war with China, but also destroy Japan's economy.

 

From the Japanese perspective, the embargo had to be lifted and lifted swiftly. The result was Pearl Harbor.

 

Here it is 2013 and there is a new Chinese/Japanese confrontation in which the United States is involved. At issue, oil.

 

I refer to the Senkaku Islands dispute. Japan has had title to the Islands based on an 1895 treaty. Other treaties have come into play over the years. Never the less, the legal concurrence is that the Islands belong to Japan.

 

The Senkaku Islands are located in the East China Sea. They are remote and uninhabited. They are not worth spit, as the saying goes. China however has elevated their value as a result of the present dispute.

 

In reality, China does not give a damn about the Senkaku Islands. Their assertion of ownership is a tactic and pretext. Japan wants to retain the Islands because they legally belong to them. It is a matter of face. Face is important to Asians. Japan cannot permit China to steal from them.

 

The core of the despite involves oil.

 

Today's biggest energy consumer world wide is China. China needs oil and fuel badly all the time and in big doses. It is the lifeline for China's huge and constantly growing industrial complex. China needs oil independence. They do not want to find themselves in the position the United States has in recent years.

 

China's real interest lies with the South China Sea. Note again that the Senkaku Islands are in the East China Sea. Asian waters are huge.

 

The South China Sea has sufficient oil and gas reserves to supply China for 45 years. Experts claim that the South China Sea deposits are as large as the Saudi Arabia oil fields were.

 

In addition to China, several smaller nations make claim to portions of the South China Sea. China is neither concerned with nor fears these smaller entities.

 

China's game has been to create a furor over the Senkaku Islands. Which they do not want nor do they have legal claim thereto. China succeeded.The furor has been created. Japan is fearful of a military conflict. The United States based on treaty is obligated to defend Japan in case of attack.

 

China recently warned nations not to fly in Senkaku Islands air space without first notifying China. In effect, obtaining approval. An assertion of ownership. The United States immediately flew two planes over. The next day, Japan and South Korea did also.

 

All this has been happening in recent weeks.

 

War clouds have appeared. The countries involved are getting uneasy. Secretary of State Kerry has been negotiating between China and Japan to resolve the problem.

 

Note once more that China does not give a damn about the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. They want the islands and waters of the South China Sea where the oil deposits are located.

 

In the meantime, China has recently begun building a naval fleet. China has not had a navy since the 1500s. The reason for the recent construction is to protect the South China Sea which they assume they will ultimately control. China has already constructed and launched an aircraft carrier and many new submarines. Amazing! No navy in more than 500 years and now China is on a speed course in developing a world power one.

 

The United States has concern with China's navy building. The United States' naval forces in Asian waters is limited. It has been years since the United States even has had a concern  about the size and quality of its naval forces anywhere in the Pacific. Nor is money available to start building new war vessels. There is not a desire on the part of most members of Congress to authorize money for such construction. The United States is in a time of economic distress, austerity and cut backs in programs.

 

I sense another Munich in the making. Chamberlain acceded to Hitler's demands for Czechoslovakia. Japan's claim to the Senkaku Islands will be recognized by China. China in turn will be recognized as the power, controlling influence and titleholder to the South China Seas. Japan will have saved face. China will have become decidedly more powerful. The United States will be happy that war has been avoided.

 

Everyone comes out a winner. But.....What happens a number of  years from now when China is a major power or the major power and wants something else that is not really theirs. A valid concern.

 

There is a separate and distinct oil based problem in another part of the world. The Falkland Islands. Off the coast of Argentina. Argentina has always laid claim to them. Great Britain, also.

 

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher had Great Britain invade the Falkland Islands to solidify British sovereignty. It was a David and Goliath war. Argentina's military was no challenge for British military strength.

 

There was no known oil in 1982 in the Falklands. There is today. Massive oil deposits have only recently been discovered in and around the Falkland Islands. Drilling first commenced a mere three years ago in 2010. Argentina wants control of the islands and the money to be made from the oil deposits. Great Britain says no.

 

An election was recently held in the Falkland Islands. Its purpose was to determine whether the people wanted to be British or Argentine. Overwhelmingly, the people voted to remain subject to Great Britain. Argentina is paying no heed to the election results.

 

Great Britain has a major problem in protecting its interests and being the beneficiary of the oil reserves. Britain's Army, Navy and Air Force of today are no where near as large and powerful as in 1982. Britain has neither the money nor manpower to wage a war.

 

It is oil all over again. The question is will the need for oil lead to another Tora! Tora! Tora!

 

I do not know the answer. No one does. Let us hope not.

ISRAEL BISSELL

 Listen, my children,

                           And you shall hear

                           Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.

 

The distinguished American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow made Paul Revere famous when he penned the above opening lines to his famous poem.

 

One problem, however. It was not Paul Revere who was the hero in 1775 at the time the first shots were fired at Lexington which marked the beginning of the Revolution. It was Israel Bissell. Historians suspect that Longfellow took a bit of literary license. Bissell did not rhyme as well as Revere.

 

Paul Revere did make a ride that day. Several men did. Historians conclude Revere only rode somewhere between 1.5 and 20 miles shouting..... To arms, to arms, the British are coming.

 

Israel Bissell rode 345 miles. The trip took 4 days and 6 hours. He rode from Watertown, Massachusetts to Philadelphia. The trip was over the Old Post Road.

 

Longfellow apparently took further literary license with the actual words Bissell shouted.....To arms, to arms, the war has begun. Again for rhyming purposes.

 

Bissell carried with him a message from the colonists' General Joseph Palmer. The message told of the Lexington attack and what the colonists should do to prepare for the British invasion. The message also stated that its bearer, Israel Bissell, was charged with alarming the citizenry. He was to be given fresh horses along the way as needed.

 

Bissell rode two horses to their deaths on the four day trip. His first horse died 2.5 hours into the trip at Worcester. A second died further along the way.

 

Every community Bissell passed through rang Church bells and fired muskets. Many colonists supported a war with the British and were happy to know it had begun.

 

In the 1950s, two columnists writing for the Berkshire Eagle wrote poems finally giving Bissell credit for the ride. Gerard Chapman and Clay Perry.

 

Chapman's poem was appropriately titled Israel Bissell's Ride. Certain lines read as follows.

 

                                 Listen, my children, and you shall hear

                                 Of Israel Bissell's yesteryear:

                                 A port less patriot whose fame , I fear,

                                 Was eclipsed by that of Paul Revere.....

                                

Perry's poem was titled I. Bissell's Ride. Certain lines from the poem read as follows.

 

                                  Listen, my children, to my epistle

                                  Of the long, long ride of Israel Bissell,

                                  Who outrode Paul by miles and time

                                  But didn't make a poet's rhyme...

                              

Two questions arose over the years having to do with Bissell.

 

The first is whether he actually made it to Philadelphia. Documents from the time indicate an Issac Bissell who only rode to Hartford. He stayed in Hartford. He did not continue the ride. He was a less than an honorable man. He billed the new United States government for a six day stay in Hartford.

 

Historian Lion G. Miles came up with the story. He found his information in only one source. The Massachusetts Archives. All other historians and documents disagree with Miles. Issac was not Israel.

 

The other issue that arose was whether Israel Bissell was of the Jewish faith. I was amazed at how much time and effort was spent to arrive at a definitive conclusion. Israel Bissell was not Jewish.

 

A few historians believe that Bissell's ancestry was of a Norman French / Swiss source. The majority however concluded that Bissell was part of the Byshelle family who in 1639 left Birmingham, England. The family was part of a Puritan group. All Bissell's were determined to have been descended from the Byshelles.

 

I suspect Bissell's first name Israel is what caused the inquiries. Historians discussing the Bissell issue pointed out that most children born in the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were given Biblical names.

 

So goes the story of Israel Bissell. A man almost forgotten not by history, but by poetry.