I’m more of a gamer than I like to admit, and I’ve become more of a political junkie than I’m keen to acknowledge, so this story hit awfully close to home for me…but more so than I’ll likely let on. 

Current-generation game systems have become increasingly integrated with the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, so now, it’s becoming somewhat common for advertising to be downloaded into video games through on-line play time (or at least that’s how I understand it).  In-game advertising has the potential to become a good revenue generator as the target audience of gamers continues to grow.

That target audience of consumers is also a target audience of voters (well, at least in part), so advertising has taken a more political bent at least for a little while.

Of course, perhaps I should have suspected something was awry when I fired up the latest Madden game and noticed that city lights surrounding the home stadium for the Cowboys looked an awful lot like the Vegas Strip.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
                
               The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
               The fifth would pay $1.
               The sixth would pay $3.
               The seventh would pay $7.
               The eighth would pay $12.
               The ninth would pay $18.
               The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
                

So, that’s what they decided to do.
                
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
                
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.  They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?  The real paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.  But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.  So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
                
  And so:
                
  The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
              
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
                
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man.  He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
                
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man.  ”I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man.  ”Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?  The wealthy get all the breaks!”
                
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison.  ”We didn’t get anything at all.  The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
                
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
                
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.  In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
               
                  David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
                  Professor of Economics
                  University of Georgia

(Whoops! Attributed to Mr. Unknown)

On Monday, a sheriff in Florida caused quite a stir when he had the audacity to mention a candidate by name – his full name — and more than a few people are outraged by the “inflammatory” statement.

I peruse far too many comments on political articles for my own good, but there I’ve seen far more actual name-calling through somewhat clever (or at least alliterative) derivations like “Shrillary” and “McSame” as well as not-so-clever versions like “McBush” and “McOld”.  

Perhaps my memory is failing me, because it’s been so long, but it seems like our former president was often referenced merely as an often truncated version of his middle initial.

Perhaps that is the problem.   Instead of using a candidate’s real name, we need to stick to shortened, modified, or satirical versions.   Dubya was kind of catchy (apparently), so I think a modified version of Mr. Obama’s name might be in order.

I kind of like Husya’.   Or, if we wanted to be a bit more proper and address him with slightly more formality, how about Husya’ ‘Bama?