Some Answers Here; Correctness A Matter Of Opinion!

Readers:

I turn now to addressing reader JC’s questions, going back a few weeks.  JC has more questions and comments and we will get to them all.  These first:

1.     How big should government be?  That’s a big question, lol.  Depends on what kind of a society you want to have, or what that society wants.  If it wants things done collectively for a lot of things, while still having individual freedom and basic capitalism (the situation in Scandinavia, for example), the expenditures will be a good deal larger.  If it wants the society to do little collectively, expenditures can be a good deal smaller, although I believe total government expenditures of a modern, complex, democratic-capitalism nation should be no lower than 30% of GDP or it will find itself failing to meet the needs a modern society requires. Those expenditures should also probably be no higher than 60%, or the “sweet spot” will have been exceeded, and overall productivity will lag.  Once you set that general guideline, then you have to decide how much of that should be national government, how much state/provincial, and how much local.

2.     Do we need more taxes to support big government? A question that is too narrow and too assumptive.  America’s taxation falls disproportionally on those in the middle, and, to an extent, in the lower classes, when one considers all the kinds of taxes (property, sales, payroll, state, etc., not just income tax).  History is full of failed societies that overburdened those who are the social foundation and basis of productivity.  America also has a tax code that favors the exploitative over the productive.  Those who make their money on dividends, interest, and “capital gains,” for example, pay a lower rate than most working people, and furthermore, get extraordinary tax breaks and loopholes.  For instance, when you as an average person sell your home, car, or other personal asset, you can’t deduct the loss.  Those who the rules-rigged system deem “professionals” can not only pay a lower tax rate on any profit they make, can not only deduct  a loss on the “investments” they sell, but can carry forward that loss to offset it in future years against income.  If it’s a corporation, the deal is even sweeter, allowing one to amend past year returns if desired to offset the loss.  Toss in liberal depreciation, depletion, and other rules, and the deals just get sickeningly sweet.  In effect, the US taxpayer subsidizes any risk or downside of corporations and “investors,” but most of those taxpayers don’t get those benefits themselves.  As an important aside, now the reader can get a glimpse about why corporations often pay little or no taxes, and why high income individuals pay a smaller tax rate than what is supposed to be the smallest tax rate.  They certainly, as Warren Buffet says, often pay a smaller tax rate than the secretaries/administrative assistants who work for them.

a.     Now let’s look at when America has been most prosperous.  It has NOT been most prosperous when robber barons paid little, and is obviously not all that prosperous now, when taxation on the highest incomes has been the sustained lowest in well over 70 years. When has it been most prosperous?  When middle and lower classes made livable wages AND paid tolerable taxes WHILE progressive taxation (as high as 91%) ensured that capital stayed in productive circulation and the drive for wealth did not become the number one priority.   Does this mean flat rates can’t work?  Flat rates CAN possibly work, but not until much else is changed around that rate (those sweet deals I talked about). 

b.     America’s government is underfunded and misallocated.  That is, the wealthy have escaped much taxation that they did not escape in the more prosperous past, AND the government has made expenditure choices that not only put us in debt and weaken us, but siphon away economic productivity, a negative synergism with cumulatively bad effects.  For instance, military, defense, security, etc. spending are at extraordinarily high sustained historical levels, and those things are generally far less economically productive (and are often counterproductive) than direct economic—preferably non-governmental—activity.  As a related matter, things certainly began to deteriorate when the unsustainable combination started happening (ever lowering rates, ever more loopholes, combined with increased government spending—Defense, Medicare, etc.).

3.     What is the size of US government expenditures and liability? A good question, and one that gets into accounting.  Because we have been deluding ourselves for a long period of time, what SHOULD be included often isn’t, and we have an extraordinary amount of things “offline” which affect both budget and liability.  Government accounting—incredibly—has actually improved in the last few years, and accounts for more of these previously offline things now.  The federal budget is complex, and includes law-mandated spending and yearly appropriation spending.  It is under $4T total, but creeping toward there.  It is under 25% of GDP, but getting toward there.  As for liabilities, that’s another tricky accounting thing.  Probable total liabilities and future promises, including the national debt, are just shy of $90T.   Of course, we need to look at more than just federal government expenditures and liabilities.  If all government liabilities in the country, as well as private liabilities, obligations, and “promises” that could become government liabilities were added into the mix, we probably have upwards of $180T in liabilities, probable liabilities, and potential liabilities, and maybe as high as $250T or more.  That’s more than 10-18 times GDP.  It’s a colossal problem, one related to our collective delusions and to plutocrats transferring their risk onto the taxpayers.

4.     How can we pay off the 16 trillion dollars in US federal debt in the future? If we had stayed on track in 2001, we’d be well on our way to paying the debt down by now.  We still have the means to pay the debt, but it’s becoming more and more difficult by the day.  In the simplest terms, first thing is to 1) correct the economy, 2) then, after the economy is corrected, stop the deficit spending and start an ever increasing surplus to pay down the debt, and 3) quit abusing Keynesian economics, and if you’re going to use it, use it like it was designed (borrow only in a recession or war; pay it back when those end).

5.       Are we close to the troubles of Greece? We are not close to the troubles of Greece, but remember, Greece’s problems are partially its own fault and partially the fault of the international system that whipsawed it.  Still, we are not FAR from the troubles of Greece, although our position as world economic center gives us some more distance than perhaps is commonly thought.  It is not a magical protection though, and people should remember that.  All credible organizations say we are on an unsustainable path.  We must summon the will to address that, and get on a sustainable path.  If you mean, does what happens in Greece and to Greece affect us, the answer is yes.  The interconnection of our globalized world, and especially global economics, ensures that.

.

Holding Pattern

Professor J,

We'll bring them all in for a landing...eventually.

In my effort to simplify and clarify I have confused and complicated (perhaps I missed my calling as a politician). LOL Busy making lists of future discussions, are you? Don't make it so hard on yourself. We'll bring them all in for a landing in good time.  Probably when some event or politician's speech brings about the need for further discussion. 

To me, the theme of Sowell's article was that financial aid fosters dependency and that the Democratic Party is fine with that, in fact he gives them credit for instituting policy with the end of dependence in mind.  Since you had been so thorough I didn't feel the NEED to address each point in turn. I merely wanted to point out that it's easy to see how at attitude of dependence can come to be, even if it ISN'T the intent. So yes, you chose wisely; your assumption was correct.

As for the abortion issue, which we can tackle in depth at some later date, I was trying to boil something thorny with more gray areas than most people are willing to think about, down into something with a reasonable answer for you so we could move on. You don't like shortcuts do you? I think for a lot of people, it is hard to understand guaranteeing citizens of a country all the resplendent benefits of citizenship without making provision for protecting them when they are the most vulnerable. This topic however has layers and layers that need peeling back. The primacy of one party or the other is just the tip of the iceberg. But again, a discussion for another time...No chance this one will run out of fuel before we get around to it.

When asked how he defines Libertarianism, Penn Jillette says  "Take a left on sex and a right on money."  Well, that clears it up! LOL The problem with defining it too precisely is that the people who consider themselves libertarians refuse to be neatly placed in any other category. I suspect the moment there is a hard and fast definition, they'll flee and create the Contrarian Party.  A party that, while attempting to nail down a platform, would use the planks to beat each other to death. It could be the first Pay Per View convention.

Please notice my obvious effort to put our editorial train back on the track after so masterfully derailing it last time! :) Trying not to introduce anything new into the dialogue this week so that you have time to give our new friend, JC, the answers he has requested.

Note to the reader: You can read JC's most recent comments and his questions for the Prof. here: 

Hold On

The title is directed at the reader—this posting will be all over the mental map! :)

Madame M,

You aren’t helping the queue problem at all. LOL

With your recent post, we now have at a minimum additionally lined up for near-term future discussion (probably sometime after the elections) at least the following:

1.     Primacy of the unborn/Primacy of the already born

2.     Millenials’ promise vs. Millenials’ pitfalls

3.     Medicare (this may subdivide into more granular discussions)

4.     The Phony War (okay, we can probably truncate this one, but it’s interesting to me!)

As if we were running short of discussion! :)  We are going to have to extend past the 26^th Century the presently projected number of discussions. LOL

You have precisely punctured a weakness in the liberal argument when it comes to “Pro-Choice”, and, given the next question (“Whose choice?”), I’m not sure there is a satisfying answer.  I have always had a step-back upward view about this hyperemotional issue.  I will queue (now getting quite numerous!) it up for a future post.

Can you explain more on the libertarian connection vis a vis The Declaration of Independence, as I’m not following completely?  While there is no absolute definition of libertarianism, in general, it’s about freedom, small and limited government, few rules and regulations, more voluntarism and cooperation, and economic conservatism along with social liberalism.   It’s still not clear to me where advocacy comes in, because families seem to be nearly absolute in libertarianism.  And families by definition include direction and control over one’s own gene pool.  Outside coercion and mandating would seem to be pretty scant in libertarianism.  I would think a more consistent view libertarian view would be one of attempting to persuade instead.  But perhaps the emotional strength of this issue upends consistency on all ideological sides!

Turning to your response to my response to Sowell’s piece (is that response twice removed?--I get as confused about that as when talking about cousins, lol):  In general, you and I each think the other is brilliant.  Of course, we think the other is “even more brilliant” when that other agrees with us! LOL

At first I thought, is this Madame’s “Defense against critique?”  :) Masterful!  How am I supposed to agree or disagree with your position vis a vis Sowell if I am uncertain what exact portion or portions you are agreeing with?  Is it just one point?  A few?  Many?  What, or which, of TS’s piece do you agree with?  Even I ended my last post by saying that it was some truths, and the body of my post included some key pieces of Brooks’ work (the working poor) that supported Sowell.

Of course, it could be that the point is plain, and I am just a blockhead (hello Charlie Brown!) tonight!

I am going to make, pending Madame’s clarification, the assumption that the central point is there is such a thing as debilitating dependency, and that it has social consequences.  No argument from me there, but will ask two (maybe three) further questions.  Who does it serve when government assistance first becomes generational?  The liberals who secure a “base,” (albeit a base that votes spottingly, and is easy to disenfranchise), or conservatives who preserve a status quo (regardless of any unjustness or inequity) and damper social volatility (something present conservatives may have forgotten)?  Or does it serve the plutocratic interests who ensure a convoluted system is easier to confuse, segment, in-fight, divert, deceive, and control?

I too am not surprised by the feelings of the old in Russia.  It’s “The Walls” explanation given by Morgan Freeman’s character in The Shawshank Redemption.

I do understand your concerns about getting too reliant on government to take care of our familial tasks.   And such reliance may also contribute to our already rampant lack of community.  Throwing those things onto the already buckling-from-the-strain nuclear or single family, in this disconnected, socially isolated environment, however, may be merely spreading kerosene-soaked kindling in an already dry forest.

I see I have already gone long-winded (hmm, has that ever happened before? LOL).  Therefore, my answers to JC’s comments and questions are going to have get divided up even more than planned.  However, here is the answer to the question of whether this a good time for the Fed to be pushing QE3, and could it cause inflation and financial crisis:

QE, or Quantitative Easing, is a Federal Reserve tool to buy, using dollars the Fed essentially creates (prints)—fiat money—some financial instruments (bonds, mortgage backed securities, etc.) that become assets of the Fed.  When it sells them, the money goes back to the Fed and those dollars disappear from circulation.  The Fed is using QE3 (that is, Quantitative Easing Number 3, as there have been two previous ones by this Board) because of the structural problems I have identified previously in my other writings: the economy remains ragged, with wary consumers still trying to pay down debt, and general credit remains tighter than desired, but the plutocratic semi-abandonment of the middle class is central.  The economy is also dragging because of uncertainty.  Not the uncertainty of “regulation,” which is a partisan phantom, but the uncertainty that the political system will actually address the multiple looming fiscal crises.   Is QE3 a little risky?  Yes.  Is it a lot risky?  Not at the present time, especially considering all the other things that have transpired and are possible to transpire.  By itself, QE3 is not likely to trigger inflation or a financial crisis.  However, if the political system does not address its responsibilities, and the people do not demand that it do so, the effects of QE3 could be a factor in any financial crisis that results from the failures of politicians.

Slow Train (of Change) Coming

Professor, 

My guess (though I can't speak for anyone else) is that for libertarians,  that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" connection at least in part some of the reason for their anti-abortion position. If speaking for the voiceless "would be" the liberal stance--why isn't it? 

As for this week's post, I wish you had been more thorough! ;)  After reading Sowell's article, your post, and the additional notes you provided, I have to say that I think TS makes a legitimate point.  Though I may not agree with his reasoning. As with lots of other things I look at intent. The shallow conservative story of welfare, as you've pointed out, is that people choose welfare as opposed to opting for an education, employment, and paying taxes (though  many different kinds of taxes are paid by everyone and in my state where we have no state income tax the poor actually pay more in sales taxes, close to 10%, than the poor in other states). A conscious choice that seems silly even when presented by someone as intelligent as Sowell. 

I do think however, that when people feel that they have few options and limited opportunities a level of hopelessness can set in. Once living on assistance becomes generational, or if one lives in a community where it is the norm, the idea of living another way can be lost. When I was in Russia recently I asked our tour guide how people felt about the fall of Communism. Her response was shocking, but made sense as well: 

"The older people want it back. The young people are excited about being able to decide for themselves what kind of life they want. They would never go back." 

That seemed so counter intuitive to me. I had imagined that those who had suffered under oppression would be more excited about their new freedoms. But it seems that somewhere along the way they got use to not making decisions for themselves and found a kind of security in it. The old ways came with a certain amount of structure that was reliable even if inadequate and oppressive. That everything new would seem unstable by comparison, makes sense.

We could say that Baby Boomers have fallen into this kind of thinking. As you pointed out we are more than happy for our parents to take advantage of all kinds of government programs. Our entire generation has been "trained" to wind through the maze of medicare, medicaid, and a variety of other benefits as opposed to doing what previous generations have done, take in aging parents and struggling relatives and care for them. Census records routinely show an unmarried female relative or aging parent living with a family in the past. Have you heard of anyone you know rejecting government programs so that they could solely provide for mom or dad?

So while Sowell and others like him (it practically is the Republican mantra) believe that people are "gaming" the system, it is much more likely that a rut is fallen into. I think it is highly likely that just like the older Russians, at some point people lose the ability to make choices for themselves. There is also a big difference between thinking that politicians take advantage of a situation that exists and that they cause it purposefully, which TS is saying. 

Something else I noticed on my travels was that, much more than here, there is a communication divide. While older subway riders in St. Petersburg wore the colorless clothes we associate with Communism, and stared straight ahead, younger people dressed in stylish clothes and were busy communicating on their I-phones. According to the book, Millennial Momentum, this hyper connected generation is going to solve a lot of problems through their ability to understand more than one point of view and collaborate to find solutions. Here is an interview with them from PBS News Hour:

In other news: My Orwellian brain is intrigued by a new book, George Orwell Diaries. In Michael Dirda's review on Truthdig, this quote stood out:

He describes the Phony War, the Blitz and the declining morale of the bomb-weary Londoners, and he quotes news, rumors and absurdities from the newspapers, such as this letter written by Margot Asquith, Lady Oxford: “Since most London houses are deserted there is little entertaining … in any case, most people have to part with their cooks and live in hotels.” Comments Orwell, confirming his flair for prophecy: “Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99% of the population exist.”

Oh, that 1% seems to change so little over time...

Not On This Sowell Train

Madame:

Yes, speaking for the voiceless would be the LIBERAL stance, but it’s not precisely clear to me that it would be the LIBERTARIAN one.   Btw, your analysis of the overall situation, and how manipulation slips another powerful tendril in, is brilliant!

The latter part of your post made me wonder: So we become more like children in one particular way when we get older, and are often most adult like when we DIDN’T care so much about being “right.”  Good food for thought!

So much is piling up in the queue, and my responses to JC’s additional questions and comments (which I’ll do here from now on rather than the comments section) are close to ready to go, yet all is pre-empted today because I am moved to respond to something.  Thomas Sowell has created a minor buzz with this recent piece of his: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/12/depending_on_dependency

Thomas Sowell is an intelligent man, one of the more brilliant minds in
conservatism today.

He's also open about his bias, and, like Paul Krugman the economist on the
liberal side, it sometimes clouds or shades his views a bit much.

This is one of those times.

On to Sowell's points, PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH:

Paragraph one is his interpretation, and he chose that interpretation because
he wanted to make a point.   First point he goes astray on: Delegates to
conventions, although they are the most enthusiastic, are not necessarily
representative of the larger group.  But regardless, many observers of both
conventions thought diversity and family concerns elicited the most enthusiasm
at the Democratic one.  Democrats did convey the Biblical principle at their
convention that "we are our brother's keeper," but Sowell's intimation about
Democrats saying that "Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick, and
the helpless" is misleading, as those sentiments were directed primarily at
Republicans in positions of influence and power (politicians, big business,
and the uber-wealthy).

Paragraph two: Correct.  It should be applied to all "sides," including his own.

Paragraphs three and four are a convoluted mixture of assumptions and
interpretations.  Sowell is falsely (and he's smart enough to know that)
classifying people into simple "either/or" categories, when people's views and
sentiments are usually far more mixed and complex than that.  Few people
prefer ALL economic decisions (What about infrastructure?  Defense?) to be
made solely by individuals in the market and/or by the market itself (it
sounds good though!), and effectively none prefer politicians to make all
those economic decisions.  He's framing the discussion, and slanting the
expectations, to get the reader to emotionally get on the thought train he
wants to take us on.  He's just more intelligent and subtle about it than a
Sean Hannity (or even a Niall Ferguson) in doing so.  And showing difference
here is further directional because people's beliefs and emotions divide far
more starkly on social/cultural lines than they do on economic ones (social
liberals and economic conservatives are often one and the same people, for
example).  The larger fallacy, however, as was discussed in my analysis of
paragraph one, is conflating the rank and file Republicans (the 90+%) with the
power centers of the Republican party, as those two often display different
actions (in many things).

Regarding paragraphs five and six, Lincoln, et al (2008)'s study on religious
giving showed the great impact that religion has on giving (although it
accounts poorly, in my opinion, for the trend that Protestants often give more
than Catholics), and Arthur Brook's study indicated this extends to more than
just religious giving.  Religion is a far greater determinant of giving and
volunteering (including time) than political affiliation, as giving and
volunteering for religious conservatives and religious liberals are virtually
identical.  It is, of course, inescapable that numbers-wise there are more
conservatives who are religious than liberals who are religious, something to
be expected at least for the reasons that conservatives tend to value
tradition, institutions, and organization more so than liberals (and liberals
tend to have more and more varied interests, which also detracts from those
liberals' time and focus).  However, one must distinguish between those who
attend church because they sincerely believe in the principles (intrinsic
motivation) vs. those who attend church for their own social gain (extrinsic
motivation).  If someone gives in order to--in this life or the next--receive
some reward or avoid some punishment, it's not "charity," but Brooks would
count it as such.

Brook's 2006 study, which I can only presume that is what Sowell is referring
to, as Sowell didn't specify, has been criticized both for cherry-picking and
for hazy research on those who do not identify as either liberal or
conservative (and Brooks, as president of the long-time pro-business,
right-wing--although not as right-wing as Heritage--think tank American
Enterprise Institute, could hardly be considered unbiased, and furthermore,
has been categorized--fairly or unfairly--as another child of liberal parents
who rejects his upbringing and becomes a zealous convert for the other side).
Furthermore, no provision was made for complexity--those who identify
themselves as socially liberal but economically conservative, for example.
Even the "scholarly" review I read on Brooks' book gave the hint of bias, as
it was from an employee of Baylor, which is a private, religious university in
Texas.  The review emphasized, concerning charitable giving, selecting a few
people (like George W. Bush, a Texan) who looked good in certain years, and
selecting a few others (Gore and Kerry) who looked bad in certain years.
While I think Gore, and to a lesser extent Kerry, probably deserve much of the
lambasting, the comparison is statistically misleading, because the years of
comparison only overlapped occasionally, and were woefully incomplete (Bush's,
for example, was compared only for a three year period; Kerry for a five year
period).   Brooks could have been more rigorous in analysis of statistics
gathering, and his neglecting to include margin of error in his stats is
disturbing from both an accuracy and scholarly aspect.

In what may be one of the most important finds from the book, the working poor
give more of a percentage of their income than the middle and upper classes.
Of course, this will not surprise those who remember the story of Jesus and
his disciples observing the giving at the temple. While many gave large sums,
Jesus said the old woman who gave two small coins gave the most, because,
unlike the others, who gave from their want, she gave from her need.  It would
also not surprise Steinbeck, who showed us in The Grapes of Wrath that poor
people help other poor people the most.

For paragraph seven, Sowell's statistics on Reagan and FDR are cherry-picked.
They do show what he says, albeit barely, but they compare apples and oranges
about tax rates, as well as the years themselves are cherry picked, both of
which make his assertions very misleading.  Sowell is basing his assertions on
Brooks, and Brooks' methodology has all sorts of problems.  For instance,
Brooks asserts that one can measure "caring" by monetary giving of total
income, rather than of disposable income, and this creates a number of biases,
first and foremost that this definition creates a bias favoring relatively
rural conservatives with low rent or mortgages, who often grow some or most of
their own food, who probably have low tax rates, etc. and against liberals
concentrated around universities and urban areas.

As to paragraph eight, Sowell is conveniently forgetting that the 19th
century, let alone the 18th century, was so noted for its economic
exploitation of the masses that it spawned what would be occasionally
wholesale revolt against a capitalism that not only bred dramatic economic
inequality but very often bordered on economic slavery.   Marxism and Leninism
did not spring out of a vacuum.  To hold that period up as some paragon of
philanthropy is worse than rose-colored glasses--it is the smoke of deception.

For paragraph nine: Here is where Sowell gets some of the best support from
the Brooks' book.  The working poor not only give more of a percentage of
their income than the middle and upper classes, but they also give more of a
percentage of their income than those on government assistance (especially
those on longer-term government assistance), and that lends support to
conservative contentions that too much government assistance fosters BOTH
dependency and less generosity--a bad combination and a bad trend that needs 
addressed to restore national character.  However, WHY so many qualify for 
assistance is, unfortunately, NOT addressed when conservatives talk about these things. 
 It should also be noted that this government assistance, while it has spiked for unemployment
assistance, job training, and other poverty avoiding things during this
lingering structural recession, is NOT (by any stretch) what drives large
budget spending and large deficits.  As percentages of the overall budgets,
this government assistance is minimal (unless Medicaid and Medicare are
included).  Even if you cut out ALL safety net spending (outside of Medicaid
and Medicare), the federal deficit would still be several hundred billion
dollars.

Paragraphs ten through thirteen: This is a conservative fear and suspicion,
but it's one that may have some validity.  It's just that there hasn't been
enough research done on it to know if it has validity, rather than just have
appeal to conservative emotions.  The criticism from independents, of course,
is that conservatives do not give valid alternatives to any such dependency,
but instead merely seek to cut off avenues of social relief-- or worse, effect
policies and actions that cause the need for social relief in the first place.
And Sowell's ascribing of insidious motives to both FDR and Obama--two
presidents largely left Great Recessions/Depressions by their Republican
predecessors--is at best undemonstrated and at worst belied by those men's
statements and actions.  I get Sowell's angst about the New Deal culture--even
agree with some of his angst--but he'll have to do a lot better to convince me
that that angst is about a lot more than just partisan displeasure and
plutocrat service.

Paragraphs fourteen through sixteen: The numbers of people on food stamps and
similar assistance have been going up nearly continuously (yet few are asking
the real question--why is there such a need?) since the early days of the
George W. Bush administration, despite that administration's frequent efforts
to discourage.  The Obama administration obviously no longer discourages it,
and furthermore, after receiving reports of food hardship among increasing
numbers of Americans, sought to address it.  Once again, this arouses the
suspicion and ire of conservatives, who feel that liberals are not only
helping their base (poor people) feel they care, but are trying to institute
dependency, and this MAY be the case.  Once again, as in paragraphs ten
through thirteen, more evidence of reason/motive and focus is needed.  When we
have that, we can make a determination, but not until then.

Sowell ignores cognitive dissonance and contradiction.  For instance: How many
conservatives denounce social programs, yet love the fact their parents (and
aunts and uncles and anyone they are spared from taking care of) get Social
Security, Medicare and Medicare drug programs?  And shouldn't it be recognized
that charitable assistance can take a form that Brooks would not measure as
"giving" or "volunteering"--for example, helping a friend or family member out
time-wise or monetarily-wise?  More factors that Brooks did not address:
Charitable giving may actually perpetuate (put a temporary band aid on) a
societal ill, while progressives who seek change are actually trying to be
more effective.  Cynics would say that the conservative view wants to maintain
the overall status quo (harsh and inequitable as it may be), which charity can
do, while the liberal view seeks real and lasting (but upsetting to the
traditionalists of the status quo) change.  If liberals are working
hard--spending their time, talent, and treasure--at getting the SYSTEM to
change, this would not count in Brooks' measurement of "giving" or
"volunteering."

Sowell stokes the fires of caustic revulsion to ALL taxation, something
Republicans play heavily on to get people to vote against their own economic
interests and for the economic interests of plutocrats.  It doesn't play to
this historian.  The idea that people pay ALL of their taxes unwillingly, that
they have no sense of duty and dues paying to their community, state, and
country, is a relatively recent right-wing concept.

Sowell makes the ideological mistake--as do many in this polarized and inward
looking society--of thinking there is only one way to something.   I might
suggest he travel a bit more to the Scandinavian countries, where there are
democracies that generally rate highest on the honesty scale, high on the
happiness scale, yet have socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, pay very high
taxes, and are also very secular.   There's some cognitive dissonance for both
him and Brooks.

Sowell's and Brooks' ideological or plutocratic crusade against the estate tax
(or, as they have called it to incite the ignorant, the "death" tax) is more
self-serving nonsense not supported by the facts.  Three of the wealthiest men
in history--Carnegie, Gates, and Buffett--have favored the estate tax for the
very reasons of avoiding concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the
highly corruptible and arrogant descendant few.  The conservative crusade
against the estate tax is a red herring designed to grab the attention of the
average person, whose descendants will likely never be subject to even the
small percentage it starts at when the level is reached, because the level is
so high (millions of dollars).   And what small taxes do hit at that level
come into play precisely at the moment when that person no longer needs the
wealth (dead, after having use of the full wealth during his or her life) AND
that person's spouse is also dead (because spouses inherit all of their
husband's or wife's estates with no taxation).  But the most searing criticism
of Brooks on this is his claim that eliminating the estate tax would cause
heirs to "likely give much of it away," for that is belied by actual
disposition of inherited wealth.  Brooks himself in his book cites statistics
that show a $20,000 inheritance generates on average $82 in donations.

SUMMING UP:

Brooks' book, of which Sowell bases most all of his arguments on, is FAR
better and far more scholarly than the trash put out by the Coulters or
Limbaughs of the world.  Brooks is a thinking conservative, and open to some
demonstrations of contradictions in his data.  The author makes a case that
paying lower taxes and giving more is better than paying higher taxes and
having the government give more.  Although the supposition is not sufficiently
examined in my opinion (the look at the Scandinavian countries is not sufficiently done), 

and might come down to just preference, it is a plausible argument, and the author has 

submitted some facts and indicators in support of his position.  Private charity IS often
better than government welfare for a number of reasons, but the situation is
more complex than Brooks presents.  And I believe he knows it.  And so does
Sowell.

Is it good to give?  Yes.  For both the giver and receiver.  And the society.
Do I think there are number of liberals who are hypocrites when it comes to
what they say and what they actually do? Yes.  Does that including "giving"
and "volunteering?" Certainly.   As a note, something downplayed in the book
but there nonetheless: nonreligious conservatives were the LEAST
giving/volunteering of ALL the groups Brooks looked at.

Sowell could have given us his source (Brooks) in the piece he (Sowell) wrote,
but he didn't.  A cynic would say he left it out for two reasons: 1) he
counted on the propensity of busy Americans to NOT research or fact check
things, and furthermore, most of his intended audiences already agreed with
him, and 2) he knew the sourcebook, now 6 years old, has been criticized
heavily--criticisms for which Sowell has no answer.

So Sowell's piece comes down to a mixture of truths, half-truths, biased
interpretations, and slantings.  Part and parcel of what's wrong with American
politics--and what's wrong with both parties.

For some detailed critiques of Brooks' book, of which Sowell based nearly
everything he said, see here:  http://www.facebook.com/ProfessorandHousewife?sk=notes

Art Matters Too

Professor J,

Now that I've settled back in, where to begin? I Feel hopelessly behind on every front. But I shall make a start.

First, I'm not surprised that those bullying men were in their 40s and 50s. The younger one is, the easier change and adaptation is (unless a conscious effort is made to remain open to new things as we age). It's harder, though not impossible, to imagine a guy in his 20s or 30s behaving so boorishly. Conservatives, more than others are set in their ways, add age and a rapidly changing world for men more than for women and it's a recipe for a death grip on whatever control they currently have.

The lack of common manners (Is this age related in the reverse?) is frustrating. How can they value another person's time so little? If you figure this one out let me know.

Libertarians and abortion: Perhaps there is some issue of control over women which you seem to allude to but I read it as more of speaking for the voiceless and defenseless, which has always seemed like it would be the liberal stance to me. However the perception that pro-lifers/conservatives/libertarians care less about humans once they are born can seem quite valid at times. At what point the law becomes involved and to what extent to protect the rights of both parties would require the wisdom of Solomon to untangle. People want to make it black and white. Like a lot of ethical and moral questions the complexity and areas of gray are hard for most people to think about since it is an uncomfortable and troubling line of thinking.

Libertarians aside this issue has been used in a brilliant strategy by the Republicans.

It's so emotional (How many rational discussions about it have you EVER heard?) so divisive, and the opinions about it so tightly held on both sides that it often trumps all other issues for the many voters.  If this is your issue...your ONE issue, your litmus test for candidates, then they own you. And they know it. After all, where are you going to go? You will put up with all kinds of other nonsense, you will overlook things you know are wrong, or you will pay less attention in an effort to keep from throwing up in the voting booth. You may even convince yourself that you believe in preemptive war and other fun things like the surveillance powers provided by the Patriot Act. While the Democrats think the woman is the victim and the Republicans think the unborn child is, the truth is that everyone held hostage by this issue on both sides is. If there ever was an issue that needed to be sent back down to the states, I think this is the one.  The country is too divided to achieve a tolerable consensus.

Your Franklin P. Adams quote is the story of my life. ;)

Now, I was so happy that you finally shared some quotes from the evening with Bly. It only took nearly a year! LOL I loved the one about our wanting the impermanent to be permanent. That is so true. So many wonderful things are fleeting and temporary and enjoyed all the more for it. Permanent rainbows in the sky would be less miraculous as would babies, bubbles, and Christmas lights. Mr. Bly is very wise indeed.

While we are meandering (we haven't done that in a while) I'll share something of interest I learned today. I'm in training to be a docent at our local art museum. Today's class was about the VTS (Visual Thinking Strategies) program, that teaches children to look at a work of art and discuss it without giving them any information about the piece. They use critical thinking skills to figure out what they think is happening but must supply evidence for their opinion. ("What do you see that makes you say that?") There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone's opinion is valued equally. In the video (you can see a segment here) we watched of elementary school children from an inner city school viewing art,  I was struck by them articulating how they agreed or disagreed with the interpretations of their peers.

Our instructor related that she had visited classes of FIRST graders where every comment included statements like "I agree with Josiah that the man looks sad" or "I disagree with Josiah that the man lost his dog." Educators report that this behavior carries onto the playground where children understand that it is okay to have a different opinion and that you can discuss calmly.

Teaching civil discourse through art. Who knew?

Another interesting thing that made me think of Sir Ken was that adults generally don't like this approach. They want someone to tell them what it means. They are far more interested in getting the "right" answer, or being right, than exploring the work together and embracing the perceptions of others. Which may bring us back to the top of this post. ;)

Miscellaneous Matters Matter

First, Madame, welcome back!  Our readers have missed your insights, as well your softening of my rough edges!

I have a good number of things in the grab-bag this week.  Many are random observations, and none of them are too large, so thought I would serve them up together for information and/or consideration.  And maybe they give an insight into the Prof’s head, where umpteen channels are on all at the same time! LOL

You asked a post or two ago what the ages of the men were that were doing the bullying:  40s and 50s.  Is that fitting of a pattern?  How many employees out there are silent because they report to someone, who, even if they don’t outright bully, dominate by veiled threat of going along or losing one’s job?

You also spoke of control.  Deep down, these "men" are not secure in themselves, and suppression is nearly always the answer for that.  Secure people don't suppress.

Why would dissatisfaction with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue translate unthinkingly into support of the individual running against? 

My friend told me about a fantastic new book he read about how people make decisions: Thinking Fast and Slow.

“I’m inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores.  The abnormal mind is quick to detect and attach itself to this quality when it appears in a normal person, and so it came about I was privy to the secret griefs.  Most of the confidences were unsought.” F. Scott Fitzgerald, in the Great Gatsby

Are we becoming a culture of the mannerless, of uncaring narcissism, of marked selfishness, even sociopathy?   For instance:  Make appointment.  Never show.  Never contact to let know that not showing.  Not think that’s important.  Not care.  Expect you to be fine with it.

I’ve never been able to understand how self-professed libertarians can square a hands-off government but demand a hands-on about women’s bodies.  I can only suppose that the rights of the forming override the rights of the formed?

When people say we don’t need regulation, are they saying greed will police itself?  Where is the evidence of that?  Why would there be any laws then?

We are pitted against each other way too much in this society.  It is manifested in so many things: Politics, sports blood rivalries, reality TV, etc.  Is competition really everything?  Who does that serve?

The House of Representatives is full of ironic things: Michelle Bachman is on the Intelligence Committee, Todd Akin is on the Science Committee, and Darrell Issa is chair of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Only in a spectacle culture could cable and satellite TV companies increase their fees for channels at twice the rate of inflation.  And we tune in (and tune out addressing the country’s problems) readily, eagerly. 

“I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired by looking up something and finding something else on the way.”  Franklin P. Adams

There is a wide world out there.  A world with pain, to be sure, but with much joy too!

Sipping the Contrarian TEA

 Professor J,

I'm back and can't resist an addendum to my previous post.

My three TEA Party experiences were a good example of what bothers me. The first one I attended had a real grass roots feeling about it. The crowd was diverse. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, objectivist, Atheist, Christian...It was comfortable, fun even. People had discussions, talked about the Constitution, made allowances for differences in thinking. However, I don't get the silly hat thing and have no idea why the people at these rallies seem incapable of spelling. But that event had a certain hopeful energy. 

A mere seven weeks later I attended the next one. Also outdoors, also lots of silly hats, but the crowd had narrowed and my heart sank as I saw that the Republicans had set up a tent to register voters. I instantly realized there would be no real positive change. Either the party was going to take over the  movement or the movement was going to co-opt the party. I'd hoped for a third party. This event had signs with ugly slogans and t-shirt vendors likening President Obama to a Soviet comrade. Something had shifted.

Of course now we know that the Koch brothers bankrolled the movement and directed things from behind the curtain as time went on.

I gave it one more chance. The third event a couple of  months later was basically a corporate one, hosted by Fox News and publicized heavily by local right wing talk show hosts. When the TEA Party Express rolled into town it was a celebrity-like event. But something had happened. This crowd was angrier. The mood was darker. I felt a real discomfort. I imagined how easy it might be to get this crowd to do something...I felt a tiny bit of fear which wasn't helped by the fact that this event was at night. Darkness, a mob, bullhorns, and floodlights... the atmosphere was disconcerting.  Everyone else seemed to be having a good time. But something was wrong and inside an uneasiness stirred. It was just too easy to conjure up images of I was seeing an inkling of, at some frightening points in history.

And that was that.

The Occupy movement speaks to my inner hippie but I may just be looking for a combination of unity and diversity that is nearly impossible to achieve. It takes large numbers and solidarity to bring about change. What's a contrarian to do?

Poetry Matters

Dear Readers:

Madame is away enjoying a wondrous vacation (yes, you can sense the envy, can’t you, readers? Lol) and looks like she won’t make it back in time to post.  While she is away, I thought I would share something I promised Madame a while back: some wonderful thoughts and poetry from Robert Bly, who I had the pleasure and the privilege of hearing give a talk and discussion many months ago now.

Robert Bly, a self-described fierce advocate for free and open expression, talked about:  Insanity of Empire (doesn’t work!).  Poets Against the Vietnam War (an insightful historical glimpse).  And then he read poetry.  Elderly and a bit cranky now, slow, deliberate, almost frail looking, with a little cough, he mumbles a little now and then.  His mind can still come across with sharp wisdom, however.   Says appreciatively that he had a great mother and a good father. 

He read poetry to us, and some were random observations of feelings, experiences, situations, while others are poetic calls to think more deeply to our human essences:

“Naked on the road.”

“Lived our own deaths a thousand times.”

“Don’t expect us to appreciate creation.  Each of us is a late comer to the earth.”

“Don’t give up hope.  That door of mercy may still be open.”

“Hard to grasp the extreme generosity that lets us go on breathing.”

“Each of us deserves to be forgiven.”

“So many small boats have gone down in the storm.”

“Forgiven for our persistence in refusing to go down in the storm.”

“100 boats are still longing for shore.”

“There is more in my hopes than I imagine.”

“A tiny roof nail on the ground longs for the roof.”

“A warm feeling your balls created in the night.” (his self-deprecating humor)

“The dignity of error.”

“How much we want the impermanent to become permanent.”

“Old men and women know how much time goes by in praying.  Let’s not try to cheer each other up.  Let’s stay in grieving another 100 years.”

“Listen to water poured in teapots.  All at once I knew that you love me in unheard of things. Love, audible, in water falling.”

“We are all farmers of a different sort.”

“To get to Heaven; lived for nothing.”

“Even if you’re a Republican, don’t give up hope.”

“Would rather I didn’t interrupt you—or myself.”

“I have sons, and I have daughters, and when one of them lays a hand on my shoulder, a shiny fish turns in the sea.” (with respect to Hemingway)

“Like a picnic in which the basket eats the food.”

“Some never say when the battle is.  It was last night.  You lost.”

“He reflected upon One Life, One Woman.  That was God’s rule, and he didn’t like it much.”

“Friend of wisdom who receives this wine and yet still sleeps, is a traitor to love.”

“I want to be far away from people whose words and deeds don’t match.”

“Like water, your beautiful, flowing poems for us, Amen.”

“Poetry used to never be done without music.”  [why the satar player was there, accompanying him with music as he spoke his poetry]

“Men are shy and think they have nothing to share and that women will make fun of them.”

“Why does one voice live and another dies?”

“Sunday is listening to the incoming week.  It might be better to fall silent.”

“How many men are alone in their lives?  And how many marry the wrong person?  And father and sons are strangers?”

“It is all right if we keep forgetting the way home.  There are a lot of shady characters in this town, and you are one of them.” 

“The salty tears of the world.”

“He had the gift of trying to hold the world together.” [Of his father, who kept other farmers afloat in the Depression]

“If you see Jacob, tell him that I am his son.”

“There is so much sweetness in children’s voices.  And so much discontent at the end of days.”

“Everywhere people are longing for a deeper life.  Let’s hope some acrobat will come by and give us a hint of the gift in heaven.”

No Faith in the Fantasy

Another stellar posting, Madame, that leaves little for me to contribute.  Heed her words well, readers!

Just as I said I would examine Ferguson’s article, and did, I said I would also look at “the Ryan Plan,” and I have.  My analysis follows:

First, there are problems because he—or rather, his office—submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis a plan that was focused primarily on Medicare and Medicaid.  Yet he and his office later “augmented” it (conveniently AFTER the CBO had submitted its analysis) with parts about other areas. 

That Ryan didn’t know the specifics of his own plan when asked a softball question about it from Britt Hume of Fox News shows that he didn’t really design it—his staff or some think tank did.  Still, it’s not like he shouldn’t have been up on the basics, especially as those basics are easy to find, especially when the CBO did all the hard work for him.

In summary, his plan shifts costs to individuals (for Medicare) and the states (for Medicaid), with some initial help (but effectively decreasing help) from the federal government to do so.  While the method may be disputed, one can agree with Ryan at the imperative of attempting to control the fiscal monster of Medicare (and to an extent, Medicaid) spending.  The elderly consume the vast lion’s share of health costs.  The reason is similar to cars: the older a car is, the more its maintenance and repair and parts replacement costs go up.  That Americans have taken particularly poor care of their health only makes things dramatically fiscally worse, and adding an unpaid for prescription drug benefit has only intensified that (the reader can assess who benefitted from that).  That the great baby boom wave is becoming elderly further sends costs off the scale.

Medicare is “funded” by 1.45% tax on workers, matched by a 1.45% contribution from their employers, plus a small premium on the actual recipients (taken out of Social Security benefits).  It’s all not anywhere nearly enough.  Present deficits run in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Unlike Social Security, which is at most only moderately underfunded, Medicare is already dramatically underfunded, and Medicaid has no separate revenue stream at all.  One part of Ryan’s proposal—the only thing real about his “Plan”—is a shock to a system that doesn’t want to face certain realities.  One of those realities is that you can’t have both guns and grandma’s bread and butter. 

Democrats don’t face it squarely.  Republicans address it deceptively.  It’s nauseating to watch.  At least the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does slow the growth of the monster, although one can sympathize with the many providers who get the short end of the stick from the restrictions of costs (although on another angle, generally, the insurance companies don’t need our sympathy for how the ACA restricts what they can charge, given their colossal profits).  For all his MANY faults, Barack Obama deserves credit for trying to do something, although the result was far less than what was needed. 

The Ryan proposal makes no changes in Social Security.

On to some relevant specifics of the plan:

Age for Medicare goes up to 67.  Voucher payments become what one gets, instead of direct payment for care received.  Critics are correct that this means the present simplified system will become complex, and a burden to the elderly, especially when they must shop in the marketplace to get insurance that they hope their voucher will cover.  If they have past history or pre-existing conditions, this could prove problematic.  It would prove impossible if ACA is repealed.  Furthermore, effective control goes to the insurance companies; heretofore, not the best idea, but in fairness, there’s also been a lot of waste and fraud in Medicare too.

Seniors would pay more for health care, regardless.  Premium assistance from the government would not keep up.

Higher income folks receive would receive less in voucher amounts.  Not a bad idea that.

Medicaid becomes block grants.

The Ryan Plan has some hidden provisions.  For instance, the present health insurance mandate would be repealed, as would the tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.  This is indirect partial dissolution of ACA.

Medical savings accounts are established in 2022 for poverty level citizens.

Ryan’s proposal does give more certainty about Medicare and Medicaid payments, which could balloon wildly under the present system.  Up to this point, one could have policy differences, and things could be discussed reasonably.  From here, however, the Ryan “Plan” is no plan at all—it is worse than smoke and mirrors.  It’s fantastical, delusional, deceptive.

Discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, are projected to go down, but no measures are proposed.  Revenues are projected to go up, with also no measures proposed.  This is magical thinking of the worst order.  I agree with Paul Krugman.  Most of this is not a plan.  It is a political game.  More manipulation.

Both mandatory and discretionary government spending are just assumed by the Plan to decline to half their present GDP levels by 2022.  Revenues had a similar sort of projection, from 15 percent of GDP to 19 percent of GDP by 2028.  CBO had an often repeated phrase in their analysis for this kind of  utter fantasy: “No proposals were specified that would generate that path.”

Most of the so-called deficit shrinking of the Ryan Plan comes from some magical reduction in defense and domestic spending, which together are supposed to (by magic!) shrink to 3.5 percent of GDP.  Defense right now hovers around 4 percent of GDP just by itself.  And as you’ll see below, this becomes even more absurdly deceptive when Ryan calls for at least initially INCREASING Defense spending.

Any deficit shrinking even under this magic depends on what assumptions are made, and what scenarios.  For the first 15 years or so, the proposals actually increase the size of the deficit.  Projected reversals of this come from assertions (not even assumptions) untied to any reality, plus unspecified “broadening of the base.”  Surpluses, small ones at first, don’t start showing up until 2040—several generations in American politics.   How convenient.  And it’s all fantasy anyway.  The government is underfunded by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts first and foremost, yet those are not addressed in any fashion.

AFTER the CBO did the analysis, the Ryan camp added provisions for cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and also provisions to INCREASE Defense.  Ryan also has drastic cuts in spending for infrastructure and education, not to mention the safety net of medical care and food assistance for poor and for children.  How deceptive.  These added provisions make an already fantastical mirage become one with a Trojan Horse.  It’s almost like it’s designed to deflect first, confuse second, then award plutocrats and defense contractors, and finally make the government pathetically weak.  It comes across as a Randian long-range plot to collapse government fiscally and force the country to accept a system with nearly no government at all. 

Some samples of what the CBO said of how things could and/or would progress: A growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise be the case.

Ferguson in his article I reviewed last week says that Paul Ryan is “truly sincere” about addressing the fiscal crisis the country is in.  The reader can look at what I have detailed above and see if they agree with that.

Ferguson says, incredibly, that there is “literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better” than Paul Ryan.  If that’s the case, it’s time to bid sayonara to America’s days as a Great Power.

Ferguson does not acknowledge—appears not to know, although that seems impossible—who really has power in this country.  For whatever reasons, he keeps couching things in terms of only Democrats or Republicans.

Do illusions, delusions, and secret plans really drive our “elites?”  An important question for all us citizens.