Re: Slippery Slopes

Ferris, thanks for commenting, man.  You raise a bunch of good issues, and it is probably fair to say that I created a straw man while arguing against the use of straw men. I agree that a slow, unwitting march to a dystopian future is more likely than some nefarious back room cabal, but I don't see gun rights as a fundamental right, nor a cornerstone of our freedom. Let me just reiterate a few points and bring up a new one.

First, people have a right to protect themselves and a right to protect their homes.  Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation that passerby on the street aren't packing heat.  I see the two rights in a balance, a freedom to bear arms as well as a freedom from those bearing arms.  Because these rights are in a balance, there must be regulations and laws to ensure that citizens know when and where to expect guns as well as in which situations they are legal.  This is why I see it as absolutely essential that every gun owner pass a background check as well as a gun safety course.  This ensures that the laws regarding firearm possession and use are known and reduces the chances that gun accidents will occur.  When you wish to enter into a potentially dangerous activity, such as owning a gun, driving a car, or operating heavy machinery, you should have to register, undergo some sort of background check, and have some training.




Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to own a gun than it is to not.  Possessing firearms can escalate situations that may have ended less violently, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common problem with gun ownership.  Rather than thinking of government regulation as tyrannical overreach, gun owners should receive free gun safety classes from the government.  The government has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and educating gun owners is a natural extension of that responsibility. By providing services to gun owners, instead of simply penalizing them, the conversation can shift from an antagonistic debate to one where all citizens are stakeholders.  Everyone should be engaged in preventing gun violence, even those like you and me, who have no desire to possess or use firearms.  Gun violence is someone else's issue until it affects someone in your life.  Attacks like the Clackamas Town Center shooting remind us that heinous acts of violence can occur anytime, anywhere.   

Second, I agree that the bill of rights has been snipped away at the corners for years.  The problem is that gun rights have become, for some, emblematic of the entire bill of rights.  For example, some of the same people who decry universal background checks as an assault upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens were the same who enacted the Patriot act, which legalized spying upon millions of law-abiding citizens. The Patriot act, which treats all Americans as potential terrorists and threats, is a direct violation of constitutional rights, whereas universal background checks can be defended as constitutionally valid under the commerce clause, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment.  You cannot cry wolf when the government asks to know the reason for purchasing a firearm if you stand idly by when they conduct warrant-less wiretapping, or other (il)legal forms of spying. The use of drones in America, whether for surveillance or otherwise, is a more disturbing overreach of government power than the restriction of firearm possession, yet it is sanctioned in the name of "national security."  Isn't keeping the streets clear of guns also a job for national security?

If you want to talk about a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I am much more concerned at the conduct of law enforcement officers surrounding the Occupy and similar protest movements of the last few years.  Examples of police brutality and violations of civil rights were sanctioned in the name of keeping the order and allowing traffic to pass.  The conduct of police officers in California universities, on the streets of New York, and in Oakland is deplorable.  It is a much more direct assault upon civil liberties to restrict the right to protest and to violate the rights against search and seizure, arrest without a warrant, and to physically attack protesters.  If an infringement upon the second amendment represents the eroding of American values, nothing should be more important than protecting the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.

Lastly, this isn't 1776, and the people's right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with protecting citizens from government armies.  Even if you are armed to the teeth, you simply do not stand a chance against the US armed forces.  As has been made abundantly clear by Holder and the justice department, the use of drones against American citizens is not illegal, so long as those citizens are deemed "enemy combatants."  Go ahead and buy all the assault rifles you want, good luck taking on the guy sitting in a room in D.C. who is piloting a drone.  My point is that quibbles over which types of guns are legal to purchase and use is a moot point.  No matter what sort of firearms you own, technology has progressed to such a point that it is not a level playing field.  An individual's right to bear arms is not protection against government tyranny.  On the other hand, my interpretation of the second amendment, that it protects a collective right to arms, is an effective safeguard against governmental tyranny.  Until the last few decades, that was the accepted reading of the second amendment: it protects the people's right to bear arm in a militia, not an individual's right to own firearms.

To sum up, restricting an individual's right to bear arms should be treated as a public health and safety concern.  Research should be done into the causes of gun violence and possible means of protection.  When lobbying organizations stand in the way of research into gun violence, as the NRA has done since the 90's, they are standing in the way of progress.  If research into gun violence can prevent even a single gun murder, it is a good thing.  If one more person will be left standing because of assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans, then they should be enacted.  You may have the right to bear arms, but I have the right to life.  The latter should be protected, even at the expense of the former.

And Go Pacers.

Education is an Investment

I've always dreamed of becoming a teacher, and I graduated last spring with that dream in mind.  Since graduation, I've been presented with a number of conflicting opportunities, all of which are more profitable than teaching, but none of which particularly appeal to me beyond their salaries.  The practical side of me says the smart thing is to jump straight into the workforce, make as much money as I can, then hopefully become a teacher in the next 5 years or so.  The other, more personal side of me knows I wouldn't be happy as a business analyst, or in an office job.  I need to be working with people, helping others, striving to make the world a better place.  Those are the reasons that, although it is much more expensive and less profitable, I'm going to graduate school to become a teacher.

The sad thing about this country is that it is so difficult to become a teacher compared to other professions, when education is the foundation for one's future.  I've received tons of offers to sell insurance, study economics or financial mathematics, or pursue some other graduate degree, each offer coming with significant financial incentive.  When it comes to paying for an education degree, however, the offers are much less juicy.  There are scholarships and grants available, but they are fiercely competitive and do not cover the price of tuition.  Even in my best estimates, all of my financial aid can only defray the cost of tuition, not pay for it all.

Why is it that in a time of record profits for Wall Street, in a time when we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, in a time of drawbacks in two wars, that we cannot find the money to properly fund education?  How is it that education is included in that umbrella category of "discretionary spending?"  I cannot think of a single service that the federal government provides that is more integral to how society functions than public education.  An educated populace is a more productive, happier, healthier, and better society.  Education is not discretionary, it is necessary.

The most maddening thing about budget debates is that we know that cutting education spending does not do anything to alleviate the deficit or the long-term debt.  Cutting education spending exacerbates the debt, by reducing the productivity of future generations.  It also kills jobs in the present, slowing down economic activity and forcing thousands of public workers to work part-time or lose their jobs altogether.  Since the recession hit, the private sector has consistently added jobs, while the public sector has shed jobs year after year.  There is no economic difference between public and private sector jobs - both are real jobs, held by real people, and both allow individuals to participate in the economy.

There is no more effective stimulus than education spending.  Every dollar spent on education pays for itself, several times over, in future productivity, teacher spending, and community engagement.  Good schools make good communities, lessen crime, increase parent involvement.  There is not a negative to public education spending, whether we consider head start programs or higher education funding.  Here's a pretty quick read on what head start provides.  Head start provides child care services to lower-income parents, allowing them to return to the workforce or seek employment.  It is not just an opportunity for the children, it is a service for the parents, too.

Finally, it should not be such a difficult decision for college students to choose a career in education.  Education should be the shining city on the hill - the destination that every bright graduate wishes to reach.  There are programs that are working to make education careers more appealing: Teach For America, Blue Engine, and many other private/public partnerships.  These programs are great, but they are extremely competitive and difficult to join, and can only serve parts of the country.  It should be a national initiative to provide energetic, qualified, and passionate instructors to every single child across the country.  The only way to do this is to change the national discourse around education.  Educational dollars are not to be bandied about in budgetary discussions, and simply privatizing education is not a realistic solution to a nationwide problem.  If the national debt is a danger to future generations, an educational deficit is much more frightening, and much more damaging.  Stimulate education: it's good for the economy, good for the debt, and good for children.  The last point is all that should matter.

Slippery Slopes

The most tired and overused rhetorical argument is to create a straw man - in other words to distort your opponent's position to the point that no sane person would agree with him or her.  The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a variation on this straw man argument, where it is frequently used in defense of present and real oppressions by playing on fears of dystopian futures.  The argument goes something like this: "If we allow the passage of this law, then what is next?  It is only one small step away from (insert dystopian vision here)."  This sort of argument is diversionary; it shrugs the issues at hand and plays upon listeners' emotions.  Lately, the slippery slope argument has been used in the gun control debate, thereby distorting the issue at hand.

I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland.  Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been.  It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights.  New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.

Here is how the argument plays out.  Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc.  The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over.  Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest.  Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.

What sacred right do these proposals violate?  The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable.  The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms.  It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons.  It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom."  In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense.  This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.

In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades.  Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue.  The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case.  Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not.  Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not -  and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners.  So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going?  Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?

Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy.  Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since.  If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year.  Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue.  It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.

Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing.  For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder.  Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix?  The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy.  It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle."  Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.

Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem.  Yes, mental health is a big issue.  Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals.  We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership.  These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides.  Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

Some Thoughts on MLK Day

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a national holiday to honor one of our nation's greatest spiritual and moral leaders.  Many remember MLK as a champion of civil rights, as a crusader against injustice, and as a paragon of virtue.  Many remember his "I have a dream" speech, and remember his commitment to non-violent resistance.  His crusade against injustice and oppression was not confined to issues of race, however, but extended to any iniquity that is perpetuated by man.  Those who feel that America has lived up to MLK's dream have a shallow understanding of that dream and do not understand how deeply King understood oppression, whether overt or otherwise.

I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.  When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"

Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time.  Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without.  Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue.  The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country.  If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money.  If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?

King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics.  Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system.  While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism.  Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.

King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth.  Why is redistribution such an ugly word?  No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide.  Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression.  If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic.  Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people.  Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own.  Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality?  To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food?  Or the right to water? Or shelter?

In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted.  One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions.  The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets?  Are not food and shelter the preconditions  necessary to sustain life?  Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?

King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water.  Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free?  Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live.  For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live.  Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property?  This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.

To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?

Schools Should Be Modern Buildings

Although most of the problems in today's society are complicated and controversial, there is one fix that should be undertaken nationwide: updating and refitting public buildings.  Furthermore, this is a solution that can be done unilaterally by individual states, counties, or municipalities, because we all know the federal government is unlikely to get it done.  Currently, public buildings are bleeding tax dollars away because of inefficient heating or cooling, improper insulation, outdated electrical and plumbing systems, and a host of other deficiencies.  Simply put, refitting public buildings with state of the art architecture and infrastructure will save millions of dollars over the long term, create thousands of jobs in the short term, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  This is a proposal everyone should be on board with, regardless of political bent.

Because of the large deficit and debt, spending has become a dirty word in Washington, unless it is accompanied by "cuts."  This is the primary impediment to smart reforms that would make government drastically more efficient.  As any businessman knows, you've got to spend money to make money, and public policy is no different.  Were the government run like a business, it would incur short term debts (especially considering the favorable borrowing rate) in order to trim costs in the long term.  In fact, this is exactly what occurred with the stimulus packages passed by Bush and Obama.  The stimulus bills incurred short term debts and averted a deep depression, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  Therefore, it is logical to spend again in order to avert the second recession that is predicted to occur after the fiscal cliff.

Nevertheless, a large stimulus is not on the table, nor is it likely to make it through Washington's gridlock.  The $50 billion dollar stimulus that Obama included in his latest proposal to Boehner and the GOP is not being taken seriously by conservatives, who view it as an overreaching bargaining chip rather than a pragmatic solution to underemployment.  The stimulus I am proposing is even more modest, pays for itself within a few years, and creates jobs immediately.

There are thousands of public buildings across the nation, so in order to simplify the discussion, I'll only discuss hard numbers with respect to public schools.  There are, of course, many things that could be done to improve the efficiency of all public buildings, but schools are the hearts of their communities and are the best place to start.  The utility savings can be passed directly on to the students, whose schools are woefully underfunded, without sacrificing a dollar in educational spending.

First, simply bringing in engineers to public schools to analyze waste and suggest efficiency reforms can save thousands of dollars annually.  The process is known as commissioning, which brings in private contractors to assess the school's energy use.  For the average public school, commissioning saves $14,000 annually, with an initial cost ranging from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on the conditions of the school.  Poorly constructed schools have a higher commissioning cost, and would likely lead to higher annual energy savings.  Even assuming high initial cost and low average savings, the cost of commissioning is fully paid off in 3-4 years.

The previous example also stimulates the economy, by creating good, high-paying jobs that did not exist before.  The next example is quite obvious, and does not require much of an initial investment from the schools: change your lightbulbs.  Changing outdated incandescent lights to modern fluorescent lights saves thousands of dollars, at an average rate of $20 per lamp, per year.  At that rate, the initial investment is paid back in 1-3 years.

Other quick and easy solutions include adding weather stripping to windows and doors, adding a second pane to windows to reduce energy loss, and painting the roofs of schools a lighter, more reflective color to reflect sunlight and reduce the need for cooling.  Repainting the roofs of schools saves, on average, 15-20% of a school's cooling costs for the year.  These last three suggestions can be done during routine maintenance.  For example, if a window breaks or is scheduled to be replaced, insuring that it is replaced with a more energy efficient window is an easy way to slowly phase in the savings, without much of an initial investment. Similarly, if the roof is old and needs repairs or replacement, do so with reflective paint.  The savings on the cooling bill will pay for the paint within the next few years.

I see no reason why we should not immediately and aggressively institute these reforms.  The costs are so low compared to the major drivers of the deficit and debt, yet the benefits are very high with respect to those costs.  Furthermore, these benefits compound upon themselves as time goes by: every year that passes causes inefficient construction to become more inefficient, thereby wasting more and more money.  The sooner we act, the greater savings we gain.  Refitting public schools creates jobs in the construction sector, which is still struggling after the housing bubble collapsed, as well as creates architecture and engineering jobs.  The savings accrue nearly instantaneously, and the environmental impact of reducing our carbon footprint cannot be overstated.  Students will attend schools that are properly heated and ventilated, and can take pride in knowing that their school is part of the solution, and not the problem, when it comes to global warming.  Refitting schools is something that every school district should do - it saves them money - regardless of what occurs at the county, state, or federal level.  It's a no-brainer, and the kind of common sense solution we really need.

Taxes and Income Inequality

In today's political discourse, it is rare that we find areas of widespread agreement.  Surprisingly, one thing most people agree on is an economic issue: economic growth is the best way to reduce the debt and deficit.  Frustratingly, this consensus in goals has not led to any consensus in policy, mostly because politicians are too busy arguing whether or not wealthy people deserve 65 or merely 60% of their annual income.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why keeping top marginal tax rates low is still an issue, much less a priority, in the tough economic times that we are in.  If the government has a budget shortfall to the point where it can no longer operate, then it is time to raise taxes.  The argument that raising taxes on "job creators" will tank the economy does not hold water.  Here are two graphics to illustrate my point:

The first is simple: a chart that maps national GDP growth and top marginal tax rates from 1946 until 2011.  Simply put, there is no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth.  The GDP (marked in red) bounces up and down irrespective of the marginal tax rate.  When taxes were at their peak in the 1950's, economic activity was more robust than it is today.  The argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy the economy is unhistorical.  Another way to put that: it's a flat out lie.

The second chart is a little more intimidating, but it isn't too bad.  It maps top marginal tax rates (MTR) against the portion of income that the richest 1% earn annually.  The black lines represent the share of annual income held by the richest 1% and the red lines show the top marginal tax rate.  The two lines are in inverse correlation to each other: when tax rates are high, income inequality is low.  When tax rates are low, as they were in the antebellum period before WWII and as they are now, income inequality skyrockets.

These two graphs give historical evidence that we should, just like was done in "traditional America," raise tax rates on the wealthy.  When tax codes were more progressive, prior to the Reagan years, economic inequality was low, but economic activity was booming.  As the tax code was reformed to become more regressive, the economy continued to grow, but fewer and fewer dollars trickled down to the masses.

How bad is it now?  Income inequality is still burgeoning, despite the economic slowdown.  This chart shows how income distribution changed from 2010-2011, illustrating that the richest among us continue to get richer, while the rest of the population sees their incomes decline.  To put a historical perspective on it, this chart shows the annual incomes of families, broken down into quintiles and the top 5%.  Things have steadily gotten worse, and the gap between rich and poor is still growing.

This data suggests that trickle-down economics do not work for the people.  Trickle-down economics only serves Wall Street fatcats who are adept at making money out of money.  It is anti-democratic to argue that the best possible economic system is one in which we entrust our homes and savings to a set of oligarchs; furthermore, it is not supported by facts or history. Since the recession, corporations have frequently posted record profits and passed on the gains to their executives (presumably for doing such a good job at blowing up the economy and cutting jobs).  If raising taxes on the wealthy will make these greedy bastards quit working as they claim, then that is all the more reason to do so.  They have been wrong in their economic predictions in the past, and the smart money says that they will be wrong again.  Raise taxes.  It's the right thing to do.

Balanced Deficit Reduction

The most crippling aspect of American politics is that policy proposals are treated as negotiations rather than as rational plans for a road forward.  For example, both political parties claim they are championing a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction because both have adopted mutually disagreeable policy concessions.  This view neglects the fact that policy is not an "either-or" situation and that there is a multitude of other options on the table that are not even part of the discussion.

First off, cuts to Social Security should not even be part of the discussion.  Although income tax rates have fallen to historic lows over the past few decades, for many middle and low income workers the payroll tax (which funds Social Security) has made up the difference in their tax burden.  As a result of the increased payroll tax, Social Security is financially sound until 2033, even after factoring in the stagnant world economy and sluggish recovery.  Social Security may make up a large portion of government spending, but it is not a driver of the deficit or the debt.  The people have paid for this program, and it should not be cut.  Deficit hawks who propose cuts to Social Security would turn it into a Ponzi scheme and rob future retirees of their benefits.

Therefore, if Republicans want to bargain with Social Security cuts, they must advance a rational position as to why slashing Social Security spending would be good for the country as a whole.  If the program is paid for, it is not a driver of long term debt, and should not be on the negotiating table. Democrats should ignore this red herring and hold strong to their positions.  Abandoning an irrational policy proposal should not count as a concession; it is simply what reasonable lawmakers should do.  It is what they are elected to do.

On the other side, raising the top marginal tax rate is something that Republican lawmakers will not accept.  The idea that the rich are the job creators and the drivers of our economy is an idea that I detest and thoroughly disagree with.  Nevertheless, it is a foundational tenet of conservative economics, and is not a position they will retreat from.  Grover Norquist's despicable pledge and the reelection hopes of Republican Congressmen further complicate the issue.  The fact of the matter is that Republicans will not retreat from a tax policy that favors the wealthy, because they fervently believe that such a tax policy is best for all Americans.

And this is where the talking heads and politicians are stuck.  Democrats will not give up cuts to Social Security, and Republicans will not give up historically low tax rates for high-income individuals.  Because of the myopic view that politics is a dichotomy, politicians claim that a balanced approach must involve concessions on both of those points.  That view is consigning ourselves to a policy that no person will fully support, and that will likely fail.

There are other options on the table that both conservatives and liberals should agree upon that would lead us out of the financial crisis, but they are not being discussed.  For instance, the tax code is horribly complicated and biased toward special interest groups and lobbyists. We now have a bipartisan consensus that removing loopholes and simplifying the tax code would be good for the country, and in the process could raise revenues.  Opt for tax reform rather than raising the tax rates.  Although most liberals would prefer the latter approach, political reality makes that move impossible. So take the next best thing and remove the many tax breaks that only the wealthy can enjoy, like carried interest, off-shore hiring incentives, and tax havens like the Cayman islands and Delaware.  (Many large corporations claim their center of operation is in Delaware because of the preferential tax code there, even though their stated address is most often only a PO box.  This policy robs every other state of valuable tax revenue and is just plain stupid.  Corporations should pay the taxes of the state in which they operate, not where they collect their mail.)

As for ways to cut spending, there are many. First, prison reform would save billions of dollars every year.  Literally billions.  Currently there is a major push, especially in the south, to privatize prisons, which leads to worse conditions for prisoners and higher costs for taxpayers.  Imprisonment is not a profitable enterprise, and should not be subject to free market pressures.  It is immoral to make money off of another's incarceration; doing so is simply modern slavery.  America is the most incarcerated country in the world, home to only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its prisoners.  That does not sound like the "land of the free" to me. 

A second, related strategy would be to end the war on drugs.  Federal law currently classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which lumps it in with meth and heroin.  When questioned on whether marijuana is as dangerous as other schedule 1 drugs, the DEA chief could only respond with the line "We believe that all illegal drugs are dangerous."  This is stupid, and leads to hundreds of thousands of drug arrests a year - destroying the future employment chances of many otherwise-successful individuals.  Many employers will not hire a felon, regardless of how qualified he or she may be.  The fact of the matter is that marijuana is not a dangerous substance, has medical benefits, and is not a gateway drug.  Legalization (or at least decriminalization) would save billions of dollars a year in law enforcement costs.  It would also help to curb the power of Mexican drug cartels, because marijuana could be purchased through safer, legal channels.  Legalization also creates another taxable commodity, rather than leaving all of the profit in the black market.  The reality is that people will smoke pot regardless of its legal status, so failing to tax it is just leaving money on the table.  I see no benefit in marijuana prohibition, and I see great gains in its legalization and taxation.

Another avenue to save money is to reduce America's imperial footprint abroad.  We have over 150 active military bases worldwide, while no foreign country boasts such a privilege inside our borders.  This costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually in operational costs and does not make us any safer.  We can begin the process of closing these bases and finally realize that the Cold War ended 20 years ago.  It's time to come home, and start some nation building in the USA.

There are many other proposals that I have read that do not involve raising marginal tax rates or deep cuts to entitlement programs, but the conversation is stuck on that one point.  What needs to occur is public pressure to change the discussion, because both sides have dug their heels in so far on this particular issue that no progress can be made.  Take the modest concession of tax reform and run with it, then cut federal spending in ways that do not impact the elderly, the disabled, the poor, or the infirm.   To me, prison and drug reform is a no-brainer that saves millions of dollars and keeps families and communities more stable.  Similarly, reducing the imperial presence of America abroad reduces our negative image and saves billions of dollars.  It is hard to characterize America as the "Great Satan" if we turn our sights inward and work to build a better country.  There is perhaps no move that would improve homeland security so much as bringing the troops home -  and there is a lot of nation building to be done stateside.  Let's get out of this ridiculous back and forth on tax rates and start discussing a path forward.  The tax code isn't everything, and there is a lot of other work to be done.

The King of Debt

The only consistant theme throughout Romney's presidential candidacy has been his unwitting descent into irony.  He argues vehemently that he is a fiscal conservative who will get the country's fiscal house in order and that he will stop borrowing money from China.  He argues that the pending debt crisis is not merely an economic issue, but a moral one, for we should not saddle our children with the debts of our generation.  On the other hand, it is apparently perfectly moral to slash public funding, which creates the jobs and opportunities of today, in order to perpetuate some anti-tax, pro-growth pledge.

First of all, public spending does create jobs.  After the stimulus bill was passed, the trend of job losses was reversed.  No, the economy did not make an abrupt about-face and grow at a rate above 3% of GDP, but that is a wholly unrealistic expectation.  I get the feeling that there were no possible gains that would have been high enough to satisfy the unbridled rage of the conservative right.  Obama was dealt a terrible hand, managed to keep the ship afloat for four years, and now has the difficult task of convincing voters that it would have been much worse had he not acted.

And it would have been.  This is not a "blame-Bush" argument, although there is much that he should be blamed for.  What I ask is that people view the Obama presidency and the Obama economy in light of what occurred before.  When the economy is shedding jobs at record rates, the housing market collapses, and the global credit and banking industries utterly fail, how can one president rectify the situation in only four years?  The only possible answer when the private sector fails is for the public sector to step in and insure that the system doesn't fall apart completely.

Here's the thing: Mitt Romney has fulfilled this role of financial savior many times in the past - in fact, it's what he has built his fortune upon.  His fortune, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, is built almost entirely upon debt.  Instead of running on this expertise, however, Romney is hamstrung by the radical right to pledge not to increase taxes or the debt.  If Romney wanted to run an honest candidacy based upon his real experience, he would highlight how he has successfully used public funds and debt to turn around failed enterprises.  He borrowed hundreds of millions to right the Salt Lake City Olympics, used millions of dollars as governor of Massachusetts, and skillfully used leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital.

But that is not what he is running on.  The image that Romney is running on is a lie, albeit a very hazy one.  Any time that an issue is staked out clearly, Romney shakes his Etch-A-Sketch one more time and shifts his position.  He should run on his experience with leveraging debt, but he is afraid to alienate a base that refuses to listen to basic tenets of economics, biology, physics, or philosophy.  Instead, he has adopted a message that offers no solutions, only criticisms.

Remember this: it is always easier to critique than it is to offer your own, better solutions.  Obama came into a country that was failing on nearly every account.  Health care costs were skyrocketing (yes, before Obamacare), public education was failing, the private sector economy self-imploded, and I don't even need to mention our abysmal foreign policy.  Four years later, the country has not descended into socialism, is not being run by a radical Muslim, and Christmas is still very much alive.  The hyperbolic commercials about "1000 years of darkness" and "not being able to survive 4 more years of an Obama presidency" are way off.  Obama has not made things worse, he has just been unable to live up to the unreasonably high expectations he set for himself.

The bottom line is that when the United States can borrow money for less than the rate of inflation, this is free money.  It is not a debt crisis.  Lendors are literally giving us free money, because the United States is the driver of the world economy.  It is in their best interest to keep the US afloat, because without us, their economies would also fail.  They are also betting that we will eventually grow our way out of this crisis, and they are giving us the money to use.  Romney could have ran on a platform of sensible debt management, and argued that his business experience uniquely qualified him for the position.  Instead, he is running a campaign solely of criticism and generalities, and I see no reason to believe things would improve under his stewardship.  If he is not going to use the free money that is being provided to the federal government, I do not want him in the White House.

Mr, Romney, you are wrong.  We do need more firemen, police officers, teachers, and other public employees.  Those are jobs, just like any private sector position.  And those jobs are created by public funds.  So don't try to convince me of your myopic view of the nation, where John Galtian millionaires create every last bit of fortune that they have out of thin air.  The answer is clear: borrow money, at the absurdly low rates it is being offered, and hire public sector workers.  I find it appalling that we would cut education and social welfare funds in the name of some self-imposed fiscal cliff.  That is a moral choice, and it affects our kids.  Perhaps if they stay uneducated, then they will buy this big lie that the neo-cons are offering.  Maybe they're just playing the long game.  I don't see any other way that their policies or politics make sense.

Elmer Fudd Politics

I am sick and tired of hearing over and over again that Obama is the most divisive president in American history.  Like most things for which he is blamed, Obama holds little responsibility for the divisiveness in American politics but makes an easy and convenient scapegoat.  The reality is that the electorate is more divided than it has been since the Civil War, because it is more profitable and politically convenient to sow the seeds of derision than it is to govern.

It is always easier to disagree with someone than it is to offer a better alternative, and this has been the weapon of choice of the GOP since 2010, when the Tea Party revolution hit Washington.  In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader (who bears a striking resemblence to a turtle), came up with this whopper: "Our top priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president."  The top priority was not bipartisanship, nor was it entitlement reform, regulatory reform, foreign policy, education reform, or anything that is useful.  To McConnell, the idea of Obama is so terrible and terrifying that there is nothing more important or pressing than to deny him a second term.

Indeed, here's McConnell on bipartisanship: "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off those proposals.  Because we thought - correctly, I think - that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.  When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To offer a course of complete non-cooperation as the best course for the American people is insulting.  Politicians campaign over and over again (as Obama did in 2008) that they will change the tone in Washington, focus less on partisan bickering, and discuss the "real issues."  How can we have a real discussion when one side threatens every bill with fillibuster, and refuses to even get its "fingerprints" on any policy proposal?  Perhaps we would have had improved legislation from this failed Congress if Republicans had been willing to work their ideas into a Democratic plan.  Presenting a bill as bipartisan does not mean there wasn't disagreement, it just means that the call to action is stronger than ideological ties.

Few people have been as critical of President Obama as Rush Limbaugh, whose fire and brimstone doomsday speeches border on madness.  To Limbaugh, anyone, literally anyone, would make a better president than Obama in his second term.  As he put it, "We are voting against Obama, Mitt Romney might as well be Elmer Fudd."  Elmer Fudd is so incompetant that he can't catch a rabbit he has been hunting for decades, yet, according to Rush, he would do a better job of running this country than Obama.  I'd turn his comment around and say that I'd much rather have Elmer Fudd as president than Mitt Romney, because I think that incompetance would be a better alternative than wilfully destroying the social safety net.

I don't support Obama on everything that he is done, and I think that he has screwed up in a number of places.  For many people, their reality today is not as rosy as it was four years ago, due to the recession and painful recovery.  But - and this is a huge but -  he was handed a situation that was impossible to solve in only four years.  When the stock market crashed in 2008, housing prices came crashing down, incomes fell, and millions lost their jobs.  Obama naively set himself higher expectations than he could possible hope to accomplish in one term, yet that is a sin nearly every politician is guilty of.  Mitt's purposeful mendacity is on a completely different plane than Obama's failed campaign promises.

The saddest thing of it all is that the GOP's chosen course of Elmer Fudd politics has succeeded.  America's two party system consists of a center-right Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that crowd out any hope for a substantive policy discussion.  Obama has bent so far to the right in an attempt to appease his detractors that he has alienated a good portion of his supporters.  Compared to Bush, Obama has drilled for more oil, coal, and natural gas, assessed fewer EPA fines, continued No Child Left Behind's accountability measures, championed charter schools, kept Guantanamo open, stayed in Afghanistan, and extended the Bush tax cuts for all wage brackets.  Whatever his secret intentions may be, Obama's record shows him to be anything but the radical socialist that conservative pundits make him out to be.

Of course, after slandering him for being a socialist, fascist, atheist, anti-American, Muslim, the talking heads turn around and call him divisive too.  And that's why I watch Fox News: the incredible irony of it all.

Society is More Than Just its Economy

I was having a discussion with a few of my good friends a while back, and I asked "Why don't we have a presidential candidate running a campaign on social issues?"  They responded with the same old logic that has been dictating the political discussion for a long time, "It's the economy, stupid."  It's true that this election is largely a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy and a debate on the proper role of government in regulating and stimulating the economy, but it is not true that the economy is the only thing that is going on.  For many people, other issues like abortion, gay rights, woman's rights, civil rights, immigration reform, voting rights, foreign policy, campaign financing, free speech, internet freedom, and so on are equally as important as Obama's stewardship of the American economy.  I find it insulting, as they trumpet time and time again, that these issues are nothing but a "distraction" from the "real" issue, which is always: creating jobs, and growing the economy.

I'm sure many of you saw the video of the veteran who got the chance to sit down with Romney at a campaign stop in a diner.  He asked a simple question: if Romney would support same-sex marriage.  Romney flat-out declined, and the veteran told reporters after the exchange that he definitely wouldn't vote for Romney. When pressed on why, he said "Because I'm gay, that's why."  He went on to say that he didn't see the difference between his loving relationship and that of any other two individuals, and to think that his civil rights were being infringed upon after his years of service to this country is unjust.  To say that same-sex marriage is just a "distraction" from the "real" issues facing this country is a disservice to all of those people who just want to same privileges afforded to heterosexual couples to be extended to all couples.  My argument for gay marriage has always been simple: Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not own the concept of marriage.  Jews get married, Muslims get married, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans get married, and they don't have to double-check with Christian leaders if it is fine by them.  Hell, even nihilists, pedophiles, and murderers can get married, and those acts are sinful according to the Bible.  So why the special prohibition against homosexual marriage?  It isn't wasting political capital to talk about this issue, and it has literally zero effect on the economy, so don't tell me that now is not the time.  Don't just kick the can down the road, address the issue.

Another issue I would like to have an open debate about is the DREAM act.  To me, it seems like a pretty simple idea: If you were brought here through no choice of your own, if you did not get in trouble, completed high school, and decided to serve your country or pursue your dreams in higher education, the United States has a vested interest in helping you do so.  It is not a costly program, it does not open the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants, and it provides amnesty to people who, although here illegally, did not choose to be here.  There are two principles of American society that I think apply here.  One is that "All people are created equal" and have the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  It does not include a clause that says "only if you were born on American soil, or if your parents did not commit a crime."  The crime of the parents should not indict the virtue of the child.  The second principle is enshrined on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor,/ Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,/ Send these, the homeless, tempest toss'd to me,/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  I'm not sure that Romney's policy of "self-deportation" is in keeping with this sentiment.

I don't think that Obama is on the right side of all social issues, and I think he's gone the wrong way on some foreign policy questions, such as drone strikes, execution of American citizens abroad, or expansion of privacy invasions.  But I do think that he is more closely aligned with my vision of a just and free society than what Romney is advocating for.  Social issues matter to me, because they are the issues on which the government plays a clear role.  The debates on the proper role of government in promoting economic growth are a never-ending quagmire, and it is difficult to wade through the muck to get an idea of who knows what they are talking about.  I want a society where everyone can marry the love of their life, where good residents can become good citizens, and where discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity, or creed is expressly prohibited by law.  I have seen Obama make moves in the right direction down these paths, and I hope that a second term will make further gains.  I fear that a Romney presidency would be socially as well as economically regressive, and that confirms my support for Obama in November.

DNC, Grow a Spine

While I may disagree with the GOP on most policy issues, I have to give them a great deal of credit for one thing: their political strength and solidarity.  The Dems, on the other hand, splinter and bicker about the correct route forward, and often lose the political battle through their divisiveness.  Then, whether or not it is a fair criticism, the Democrats are blasted in the media for being ineffective, divided, and for not leading the country forward.  Paul Ryan, in his speech at the RNC, repeated the ability of conservatives to lead, and I have to agree with him.  When the Republican party comes up with a new talking point or policy position, it is astonishing how quickly they can rally the whole of their base behind it.  Two examples I'd like to use to illustrate this point are Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and the sudden panic about deficit reduction.  Republicans have historically opposed raising taxes; indeed, Reagan and George HW Bush ran on pledges of lowering taxes.  Remember Bush's campaign slogan: "Read my lips. No new taxes,"?  The difference between Republicans 20 years ago and today is that, when confronted with the reality of balancing a budge and running a country, they used to raise taxes.  Reagan raised taxes over 10 times after initially lowering them, because he realized that the growth that may be stimulated through tax cuts does not compensate for the lost revenue.  The elder Bush also reversed his campaign pledge and raised taxes when confronted with the realities of government.  Today however, an unelected radical, Grover Norquist, has the Republican party held hostage to some pledge that most people think is naive at best, sinister at worst.  What Norquist has on his side are big monied interests that will put huge resources into elections to insure that Republicans who reneg on the pledge will not be reelected.  But the public message is that "We can't raise taxes on job creators. Ever. Under no circumstance."  The point is that the party was able to rally behind a single message, and Democrats cannot compete with that sort of solidarity.  Similarly with the debt panic, which is really a rather new thing.  Since the Tea Party revolution 2 years ago, it has suddenly become impossibly urgent to reduce the debt, and do so now.  This is a remarkable departure from past Republican positions, who freely racked up deficits because, as Dick Cheney once said "The deficit doesn't matter."  Apparently it only becomes an issue under a Democratic president.  Regardless, the Republican party has demonstrated a remarkable agility in rallying behind a new talking point.
  
In contrast, Democrats can't agree on anything, and the latest, most embarrassing example occurred during the DNC last week.  After being blasted by conservative commentators for not proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and for not praising God in their convention platform, Democrats scripted a change to the party platform.  The convention president, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, proposed an amendment to the DNC platform that would include mentions of God in the faith section, and include a nod to Israel in the foreign policy.  The method of amendment was by a vocal vote, in which a two-thirds majority would be needed for ratification.  He asked once, and the yeas and nays were nearly equal.  That should have been the end of it.  There was no super majority to ratify the amendment, and thus it should have been dropped.  Instead, he asked again if there should be an amendment to the party platform.  For a second time, the yeas and nays almost perfectly counterbalanced each other.  But again, the DNC leaders refused to yield.  Instead, he asked a third time, received exactly the same response and then claimed "in the opinion of the chair" that there was the requisite super majority needed to ratify the amendment.  What a bunch of BS.  If anything, the nays grew in intensity as the question was repeated.  Perhaps most disturbing about it all was that the ratification was pre-scripted on the teleprompter, so Villaraigosa knew exactly what to say after the vote was taken.  It was the most awkward and slimy moment of the DNC convention, bar none.  

Here's the thinking of the DNC heads: "Oh crap, the Republicans have the religious vote locked down, and we can't appear weak on Israel, so we better do something quick."  They tried it, and the Democratic base voted it down.  To try to save face, they stole a page from Romney-Ryan's book and just flat out lied.  It's downright embarrassing, and anyone who believes that our political parties are not run by special interests should take notice.  It doesn't matter what the average person really wants, because both parties only pay attention to special interests and talking heads on television and try to run damage control.  The stupidest thing about it all is that it won't sway a single voter over to the Democrat side in November.  Look, the Christian Right is a united front, and simply amending your party platform to include a mention of God isn't going to change any of that.  Whether or not your party's platform more closely corresponds to Christian teachings is irrelevant, apparently.  The sides are dug in, and all that the Dems have done is piss off a whole bunch of their constituents.  Furthermore, I really liked the language that the DNC had on faith without any explicit mention of God because there should not be a specific endorsement of any religion in a political party platform.  Instead, they wrote: "We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country."
That paragraph doesn't take anything away from Christianity, but it also doesn't privilege it above other faiths.  What is does do is respect the rights of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other person of faith as equally protected and valid.  What the DNC did was slimy and embarrassing, and goes against their own principles of inclusion and "one person, one vote."  If they had a backbone, they would have accepted the amendment as dead, and defended that action in the media.  They could argue that they don't endorse one faith above any other, and that all faithful individuals have a place within their party.  They could argue that, as a democratic institution, they believe that the voice of the people is the guiding force of their party.  What we have instead is just a farce.  You didn't win any votes with this decision, and you probably lost a lot more than you'll gain.  Great job, morons.

There is no Silver Bullet

I've argued a lot for a more progressive tax code in order to save this country from our debt crisis, because I've always felt that a flat tax is not a fair tax, and that to take more from those who can least afford it is not the way to get our fiscal house back in order.  In response, I hear time and time again that taxes on "job creators" will stifle innovation, lose millions of jobs, and wreck our economy.  The silver bullet that they propose instead is one that has been tried time and time again, and has failed to deliver each time.  Lowering taxes on the wealthy does not drive the economy, it does not provide for the poor, and it sure as hell does not equate to prosperity for everyone.  Our top marginal tax rates, whether personal income, corporate income, or capital gains are at the lowest levels they have been since the 1930's.  How low is low enough?  When will the magic of tax breaks cast its spell?

In response to a debt reduction plan that defies arithmetic, democrats proposed a plan offering a balanced approach to debt reduction. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, democrats argued, would be the best way to continue providing necessary services to those in need while bringing our finances back from the brink of insolvency.  Let me remind you of a moment from the republican debates a few months back.  When asked if they would accept 10 dollars of spending cuts for 1 dollar of revenue increases, each and every prospective republican candidate refused the offer.  These candidates don't negotiate, they stonewall.  Again I ask, how low is low enough?  Why have we not seen results from tax cuts?  I can see the effects these revenue cuts have taken all across Oregon, my home state.  Schools are cutting teachers and cramming more children into classrooms badly in need of repair, roads and bridges are going years without adequate repair, and policemen and firemen are losing their jobs.  Food assistance for the starving is underfunded, care for the elderly and the disabled is being cut, all in hope that somehow, sometime, the economy will boom, and everything can be paid for again.  This is not a reasonable approach to deficit reduction, it is placing the burden of Wall Streets failure upon the backs of those who had no part in its crash.

Look, when the government employs people, that's not throwing tax dollars away, that's putting tax dollars back into the economy.  Teachers, firemen, police officers, social workers, and government employees are consumers, just like any person from the private sector.  Every dollar spent on a teacher is a dollar invested in the next generation, and a dollar that will get spent in the market, or reinvested by the teacher.  Government jobs are real jobs, held by real people, and they have a real impact for millions of middle and low class people across America.  To those who proclaim that we are robbing our children of their futures by overspending, and in the same breath advocate for deeper spending cuts for education, I say: how dare you.  Education is the key to one's future.  If we forget that, it won't be a fiscal deficit we have to worry about, but a knowledge deficit.  When the next generation of Americans grows up, it is our duty to have provided them with the skills they will need to succeed in that work force.  Austerity fails to do so.

Whenever a plan is advertised as "good for the economy," I wonder, for whom is it really good?  Government jobs are primarily filled by individuals in the middle and lower classes, and cutting government jobs most acutely affects those who can least afford it.  On the other hand, financial analysts argue that if their taxes are cut further, GDP will surely rise.  Well, GDP growth is at best a crude measurement of the health of the economy.  If the richest tenth of our population is doing great, GDP will rise, regardless of the conditions felt by the other 90% of citizens.  Lowering the highest marginal tax rates and relaxing financial regulations will just further entrench money in financial centers, but won't bring any relief to struggling counties in the Mississippi delta, in the Appalachians, or in rural middle-America towns.  They simply won't see the prosperity come raining down, and if they do, it will be a trickle.  With an eye to the future, and with a plan that will immediately create jobs, the government should boost infrastructure and education spending that will lower unemployment and bring us out of this depression.  Yes, there are cuts to be made, and government waste to be reduced.  But we cannot rob this next generation of the infrastructure and education that we enjoyed, simply because our financial institutions became "too big to fail."  That would be economically unsound, and morally unjust.

False Equality

I am always surprised at the rhetorical lengths politicians will go to in order to promote a policy, but this "We Built It" crap is nonsense.  The worst of it all, is that Republicans play the victim and argue that there is equally hyperbolic and offensive attacks from the other side.  It isn't even close.  Yes, the Democrats have launched offensive advertisements, and Democratic politicians have painted pictures of Romney as callous, uncaring, immoral, etc.  I could not agree with you more on that point: many Democrats and Liberals are lying bastards, who will say anything to get their way.  I despise those sorts of people, who manipulate the facts and distort reality in order to promote a policy.  There are many instances where unions have distorted facts and lied in order to influence a policy change.  That is wrong, and I agree with you.  I only hope you can grant me the same outrage when I point it out in your own rhetoric, and illuminate the falsehoods you are perpetuating.

Please, take a second and really think about what words you are chanting, wearing on your shirts, displaying proudly online.  Think if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe what you are saying and accept the implications of the statement.  To chant "We Built It" is to imply that the other party does not support the same thing.  The president's statement, "You Didn't Build That," was simply not about small businesses, or about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, or about demonizing success.  That is absolutely false, and bears no relation to reality.  Why would the president demonize success?  He is very successful, ultra-competitive, and is running an election campaign - why would he deliberately demonize any demographic, especially one so prominent as "successful people."  Success is such an amorphous term anyway.  There is no single definition of a successful person; I'm sure President Obama considers himself successful. What do you even mean by that, "demonizing success?"  Do you really think Barack Obama hates achievement, and wants all of America to, I don't even know what, be welfare slaves?  If you mean the kind of achievement that I would better characterize as capitalist rapaciousness, then I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism.  Not everyone rates success or achievement solely through one's (offshore) bank account or one's trust fund, in fact, most people will never enjoy the security of said trust fund, or savings account.

That is not to say that having a savings account, working hard, or achieving is wrong, or evil, or immoral.  I am not saying that at all.  Perhaps my greatest dream in life is owning a house, starting a family, having a stable, respectable job.  I believe that was what the American dream was all about in the first place.  In my mind, a society that can provide a reasonable and sustainable path to that dream is the greatest society that we can have in place.  And I believe that nearly every liberal, democrat, even most socialists would agree that providing a route to such success is a function of a good government.  I recognize there are radical elements out there who would do away with the notion of private property in all, and I disagree with those individuals.  The president does too.  He is not an anarchist, or a radical Muslim jihadist, who is the product of some half-century old communist scheme to elect a radical president at this precise moment.  The whole birther thing is an entirely different story - who the fuck cares?  What does it matter, in his policy, if he is born in Kenya?  But I'll have to leave that issue for another day.

It isn't a false equality of rhetoric at all.  One side says the other is unamerican, unpatriotic, atheist, muslim anarchist, communist, etc, and the other says the other are greedy bastards, who do not want to share the wealth.  How can you honestly equate the two?  Greed, need I remind all your Christian conservatives out there, is a sin.  In fact, if I remember correctly, greed and avarice are some of the seven deadly sins.  It isn't unamerican to decry greed and avarice, it is at the very center of our moral fabric.  Don't pretend for an instant that Mitt Romney is not a greedy man.  Why do you need $250 million dollars?  And you think only paying 13% on your taxes is somehow a fair rate, and that a more progressive tax code would somehow destroy innovation and wreak havoc on the entire economy.  The man has amassed a fortune amounting to a quarter of a billion dollars; do you really think he would not have been pretty damn successful with a 20% tax rate, or, God forbid, something a little bit higher than a janitor pays?  If you raise taxes on the wealthy, why would they just say "to hell with it all" and stop working entirely?  From the party of individual achievement in the face of obstacles, arguing that a higher tax rate would crush peoples urge to strive smacks of utter bullshit.  I thought that the poor should rise up themselves, even though times are tough.  But when the wealthy are asked to pay a bit more, suddenly it becomes impossible to achieve in a harder tax climate.

And finally, look around you as you chant "We Built It."  How many objects and services that you enjoy every day did you really build?  With your bare hands, with no help from the government in any shape or form.  Did you, for instance, build the Tampa convention center, or the roads to get there; did you lay the cable for the electrical infrastructure; did you fight, and die in battle, to protect your liberty to chant those words; or did the government play some role.  If you started a business, who educated your employees?  Do they drive on streets to get to work, or take public transportation?  You didn't build that.  Did you settle the town you grew up in, or did the government build up that city, invest millions of dollars and countless hours of union and public manpower to build it?  You didn't build that.  Think about it, there is honestly no way you can disagree with the role the government plays in a good society.  I don't want to destroy society when I say that there should be a more progressive tax code, I want to raise the funds necessary to keep those roads maintained, and keep those schools open, and keep those teachers employed.  Don't be a lemming, and accept some terrible talking point as your political mantra.  Please, just take a second, and just think about it.

Dinesh D'Souza is an idiot.

I'm not sure how many of you have heard about Dinesh D'Souza's new movie, 2016: Obama's America, but it looks like a piece of jingoistic garbage to me.  After hearing that it is setting box office records for documentaries, I decided I had to check out the trailer.  Here's what I found:

"Obama has a dream, a dream from his father: that the sins of colonialism be set right, and America be downsized... America has a dream, from our founding fathers: that together, we must protect liberty, and America must grow, so with it, liberty grows."

Whenever I hear statements like this, about how America is some bellwether of liberty, my first reaction is always confusion.  Dinesh D'Souza is a very successful man; he's been a writer and intellectual for many years, he's a Dartmouth graduate, and currently heads Kings College in New York.  For someone with that storied of an academic career, making such a sensational and ahistorical comment is perplexing.   The way I see it, either D'Souza is ignorant of American imperial history, or he's maliciously misrepresenting the facts in order to elect Romney.  Because I don't like to pin evil motives on people without good evidence, I'm going to opt for the other possibility, that D'Souza is an idiot.

Just off the top of my head, here's a brief history of how when America grows, so with it, liberty grows:

1492: White people "find" America.  Within decades, a once glorious civilization is reduced to less that 10% of its former size.  The extent of disease and famine ravishing the native communities cannot be fully known, but most historians estimate that untold millions of indigenous people lost their lives in a very short period of time.  Using alcohol and unfair bargaining techniques, settlers systematically rob native peoples of their lands.  Contract after contract is signed with the United States, and each is subsequently broken by "the land of the free."  This theft of land comes to a head under Andrew Jackson, the man who I consider to be the most reprehensible president of all time, who made a name for himself killing natives in order to drive them away from valuable farmland in the south.  (Doesn't that sound a lot like "protecting American interests?"  The same rationalizations are around today)  I'm sure you are familiar with the Cherokee nation's Trail of Tears, a grueling march in which many suffered and perish.  And to even think of glorifying General Custer and his "brave" last stand.  Custer provoked violence, and got himself into a stupid situation.  I cannot do the tragic history of American indigenous peoples true justice, but if you are unfamiliar with the extent of our nation's actions, a little research will be sobering.

Remember how glorified the battle of the Alamo was made out to be in school?  Why do you think the Mexican army was attacking the Alamo in the first place?  Because they hate "American exceptionalism?"  Absolutely not.  The lone star republic robbed the Mexican government of hundreds of square miles of land, upon which lived many Mexicans and indigenous peoples.  The Texans basically just declared that a vast swath of land was their right, and then proceded to kill and rob the owners of that land.  So much for America's sacred property rights.

Beyond the actions of a rogue state like Texas (who wants to take responsibility for Texans, anyway?), America has been far from a liberating force in Mexico.  From sacking cities to stealing Arizona, New Mexico, California, and more, America has been the exact opposite of liberators.  Even in the 20th century, American naval vessels were bombarding coastal towns in the Gulf of Mexico to dissuade the Mexican government from impeding American trade.  What harbingers of peace and liberty.

But Manifest Destiny was not enough for America.  After the frontier was closed, and we had taken all the land we could from Mexico, Spain, France, England, and millions of indigenous peoples, we had to turn our sights abroad.  Why do native Hawaiian's resent so many white tourists?  Because they represent the conquest over a once-free people.  We have holdings in Guam, in the Philippines, in the US Virgin islands, in Puerto Rico, in Cuba, in nearly every island group in the Caribbean and South Pacific.  Do you think that we gained those lands because the natives invited us to liberate them?  America was an imperial nation, plain and simple.  Anyone who tells you different either does not know their history, or is purposefully distorting the facts.  There is no gray area.

In WWI, America passed the Alien and Sedition acts, perhaps the least free laws that have ever been on the books.  Speaking out against the war effort, or even just making anti-American proclamations, was enough to get you jailed.  In the case of Saccho and Vanzetti, it got them hung.  The sheer amount of propaganda that was released in order to stir up a desire for war is staggering - it reeks of fascism. As a nation, we declared an official stance of neutrality only to continue selling arms to both sides of the war.  Today I read that America's arms sales have skyrocketed, to over $66 billion per year, by far the highest in the world.  Some things never change, do they?  The most pressing reason we entered the war was that the side we were most heavily invested in, the British especially, were losing.  We needed to hedge our financial bets.  Think of it in terms of a bailout: the British war profits were "too big to fail."

In WWII, America acted astonished when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but there is insurmountable evidence that the White House had been repeatedly warned of Japanese aggression.  Because of our colonial holdings in the Pacific ocean, Japan was cut off from valuable resources like oil, steel, and rubber, all vital to an industrializing economy.  The Japanese made clear that they were being hemmed in by ABCD, or the Americans, British, Chinese, and Dutch.  They claimed that the colonial powers represented an existential threat to their nation and, after repeated warnings, attacked America.  It was then, and only then, that we entered the war in Europe.  We did nothing when the Alsace-Lorrain was conquered, nor when France was pummeled, nor when Eastern Europe was decimated.  Once again, it was only when American economic interests were threatened that we took action.

After WWII, having secured our place as one of the two largest world powers, we quickly antagonized the other.  The Soviet Union was a terrible regime also, but was it really so much worse than America? Think back on the Cold War, how often did Communists attack Americans?  When were we, unprovoked, threatened with invasion or bombing?  Then consider all of the times we enacted a policy of intervention, citing fears of a "domino effect" or worrying about "regional stability?"  The Cuban missile crisis was provoked by the Bay of Pigs boondoggle, the Korean war was never declared and never ended, Vietnam is a tragedy of epic proportions, and the even more extensive bombing of Laos and other Southeast Asian nations is appalling.  And at home, McCarthyism, Red scares, and xenophobia is the name of the game.  Thousands of artists, playwrights, musicians, academicians, and regular citizens were rounded up on charges of sedition.  So much for free speech, I suppose.

I can't write an article on American imperialism without mentioning NAFTA and our continued rape of everything else in the Western hemisphere.  NAFTA is free trade only by name, and is prejudiced against those who can least afford it.  Low-income people, especially from Mexico, resent this agreement because it has done nothing to improve their prospects.  The profits are all being bled back to wealthy individuals in the United States.  The history of CIA interference in Central and South America is disgusting, and much of it is still classified and unknown.  We have overthrown and opposed many popularly elected leaders in the last 50 or 60 years, and replaced them with brutal dictators and imposed regimes that are more friendly to American economic expansion.  I'm no expert on this part of history, but what I have read is truly horrifying.  We have become the agents of oppression and have opposed the popular will of millions of peoples only to more thickly line our pocket books.

I won't even get into the last 20 years of our history, except for one comment.  I have never understood how pre-emptively striking another nation is morally defensible.  How does the need to protect one nation's interests supercede the sovereignty of the other?  To millions of people, Americans do not represent liberty, equality, or brotherhood, but rather guns, bombs, and civil unrest.  Mission accomplished.

Now, I'd like to repeat: I did no extra research for this blog post, but simply wrote down what I could remember about America's bloody past in this world.  If you want to know where I am drawing most heavily from, check out Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States of America," Kenneth Davis's "Don't Know Much About History," and James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me."  They lay out, in much more extensive detail, exactly how despicable our nation's past has been.

So, Mr D'Souza, as America has grown, has liberty grown?

Welfare Reform

  Recently, welfare reform has returned to the forefront of our national political discussion and has just as quickly been turned from an opportunity for substantive discouse into little more than a shouting match over the airwaves.  The question is not whether welfare needs to be reformed, but how it can be reformed so that the government can continue providing benefits to millions of struggling Americans.  Entitlement spending, in the forms of welfare, social security, and health coverage, is growing exponentially, and the fear is that future costs will tank the national economy.  The fear of fiscal calamity is very real and rational - most models and projections agree that, if changes are not made, social spending will soon overwhelm the national deficit.  The question is, then, how should welfare be organized to maximize its impact?
  Like many issues about which conservatives are passionate, they argue about welfare based upon principle.  Welfare without a work requirement, conservatives argue, is nothing more than a free handout, and free handouts are unfair to the productive members of society.  They argue that it is unfair to use the success of one to pay for the failure of another.  They claim that welfare benefits encourage out-of-wedlock births, drug use, and engender a culture of dependency upon the government.  In a surprising twist of illogic, I have even heard it argued that welfare is a form of modern slavery, as though each welfare check comes pre-packaged with shackles and chains.  I'd like to combat these principles of "fairness" with a few principles of my own.
  There are few words so fundamentally American as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."  The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of our democracy, and guides the moral compass of our nation.  Where else should one begin when discussing principles of welfare?  The first thing I would like to point out is that the rights are "inalienable," meaning that no person can lawfully dispossess a citizen of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  In regard to welfare, what is more fundamental to life than food and shelter?  The government's role is to safeguard our rights, therefore it follows that the government should ensure that every citizen has daily sustenance.  There are no qualifications or conditions attached to these rights; they are inalienable, fundamental.  We do not hold it to be self-evident that man has the right to food if and only if he works, or that man can only be free if he is a productive member of society.  In my mind, there is little else a government should be doing if its population is starving.  What else could be more democratic than ensuring that each man, woman, and child has enough food to make it to the next morning?
  The argument that welfare is a form of modern slavery is spurious at best.  No chains can bind so tightly as the confines of poverty - welfare provides a helping hand out of that cycle.  Think back on your own life: have you ever been bailed out by another?  Have you ever called your parents for a few extra bucks to make the next rent check?  Did doing so enslave you?  Nobody makes it through this world alone, and to muddy the issue by throwing around accusations of slavery is plainly dispicable.  Slavery is the theft of one's human rights, whereas welfare is a temporary form of assistance to those who are already struggling.  If someone is already living in conditions of poverty, would you begrudge them the food on their plate?
  Conservatives often argue that the government fulfills many unnecessary roles that would be better filled by the private sector - one such program is welfare.  They argue that, were the government to get out of the way, private charities would step in to fill the void.  I have never understood this claim. Poverty has already run rampant, so where are the private charities currently?  Whether or not welfare exists as a government program should have no bearing on the private charitable contributions of Americans.  If Americans are as generous as conservative think tanks argue, then they should already be working to solve poverty, rather than waiting for welfare to be gutted.  I contend that it is utterly irresponsible to argue that private charity can step up to fill the void that the federal government's millions of dollars currently fill.  I'm all for private charity and for volunteerism, but that charitable impulse exists independent of government action.  If you feel truly charitable, do something charitable.  Do not blame the policies of others for your inaction.
  The final point I'd like to make is also, to me, the strongest.  Regardless of the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births (which are a function of changing social standards), increased drug use among welfare recipients (drug use is widespread across all socio-economic statuses, especially if you consider alcohol use and abuse), or a degradation of the work ethic (a whole separate issue in itself), welfare reform impacts the children of these struggling families the most.  If we believe that "all men are created equal," then we should ensure that every child is guaranteed sustenance and shelter every day of their life, without any consideration of their parent's actions.  If my dad is a deadbeat drug dealer and criminal who never worked a day in his life, why should I have to suffer as a child?  You can make whatever argument you want about the moral implications of free handouts, or about the social implications of welfare without a work requirement, but in the end, it is the children who suffer most acutely from reduced benefits.  I think that welfare needs to be expanded, that more people need (and deserve) food assistance, that housing for low-income individuals needs to be more readily available, and that there is no higher purpose for the government than to address these issues.  Forget foreign wars, forget missions to Mars, let us fix the very real problems in our homeland.  People are starving, children are dying, and all our political leaders can do is point fingers at each other.  Nothing is of such paramount importance, and nothing deserves the focused attention of our nation as poverty reduction.

The Case For Renewable Energy

  My last post was about the dangers of doubling down on natural gas and coal production as our primary sources of electricity, while this post will focus on the benefits of a push toward renewable energy.  I think that now is precisely the time to begin an earnest national effort to revolutionize US energy production; every year we wait just diminishes our gains from making an early investment.  The arguments about global warming and the environmental benefits of renewable energy have been made time and time again, by folks who are much more knowledgeable about climate change, so I'll skip them for now.  The environmental preference for renewable energy is well-established, but changing our national energy production is always derailed by economic concerns.  I'll present my case for making a change to renewables solely through an economic lens in order to show how skewed the current system is, and how certain simple policy changes will redefine the energy industry.
  First, proponents of conventional energy production point to the fact that oil, coal, and gas are cheaper to produce than renewable energy.  If this were the case, why do those corporations get extremely special treatment in the tax code?  It isn't a fair fight in a free market when one side gets local, state, and national tax incentives due to the extremely influential energy lobbyists.  I'll give you a quick smattering of some statistics I dug up: the federal government provides about $2 billion in subsidies to conventional energy companies annually, from 1918-2009 that average federal subsidy was about $4.8 billion.  It is impossible to argue that the oil companies would have such a stranglehold upon energy production without the billions dollars of preferential treatment they have received from the federal government.  The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that, when local and state tax breaks are factored in, the total tax subsidies for oil companies ranges from $133-280 billion pro annum.  All this is occurring at a time when the 3 largest domestic oil companies posted a combined profit of $80 billion dollars.  To put the icing on the cake, Exxon paid only a 2% tax rate last year, even though it is the third largest American corporation and continues to post massive profits.  I wonder how many other industries could benefit from a 2% tax rate and billions in tax subsidies?  It's no wonder that oil and other conventional fuels are currently more viable, because we built the system that way.
  Here's how we can balance the scales: make it a profitable venture to start a renewable energy company.  People worry that expensive initial costs will not be offset by the energy savings in the future, so we should provide huge incentives to entrepreneurs and small business owners to start renewable energy companies and implement environmentally friendly practices into their businesses.  There are some strides being made in this direction that are promising: federal tax deductions of up to 30% for solar and wind power, and 10% for some other renewable sources.  I would like to see those deductions go way up, perhaps in the form of federal subsidies so that the business owner doesn't have to deal with the burden of the upfront costs.  I've heard the argument that the reason the tax code favors the wealthier segment of the population is because it encourages innovation by promising huge rewards.  Thus, people will take a gamble because they hope to strike it big.  I think a better system would not raise the ceiling for accomplishment, but would raise the floor, so that if one fails, they don't fall so hard.  Make it easy to start a business, to acquire tax credits, to grow your company, and above all, make it less painful to fail.  This can be accomplished through business tax credits and incentives for renewable energies, as well as fixing and augmenting the social safety net (much easier said than done, I realize).
  On the other side of the tax code, we should tie the tax breaks of the energy companies to renewable incentives.  I don't think the best way to achieve energy independence from conventional sources is to go cold-turkey, because that would result in massive blackouts, inefficient distribution, and the loss of thousands of jobs.  The results would be catastrophic, if we simply pulled the plug on conventional energy sources.  So make it profitable for the big companies to change.  If we say, just as an example, Exxon can pay a low tax rate (although 2% is way too low,) as long as they meet such-and-such green standard, then green technologies become more economically viable.  One way to do so is link tax subsidies to research and development in renewable energy sources, or to provide a matching tax break whenever a company implements solar or wind power instead of oil.  Make it the same upfront cost to build a conventional oil rig as it would be to install a massive solar plant, and more companies will make the change.
  Aside from the tax code, which is broken in all sorts of places, we have quite the stagnant job market.  There is no time like the present to improve the infrastructure of America, and this creates many jobs on a national scale.  The transition to green energy production provides employment opportunities at every turn. We need construction workers to build new plants, install new equipment, retrofit schools and public buildings, etc.  The market for engineers expands greatly, as new technologies need to be improved and made more widely available.  There are a number of administrative and inspector positions to ensure that environmental standards are being met, and managerial positions will open up to manage new divisions of conventional energy companies.  I don't see how a massive investment in renewable energy would be bad for the economy, because it boosts private and public sector hiring, thereby growing the tax base and the number of consumers. The way to get ourselves out of this recession is by putting America back to work.
  At the very least, there is one policy that everyone should agree on: refitting our schools and public buildings to make them more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.  Many public buildings were constructed decades ago, with outdated standards for energy efficiency and environmental friendliness.  What better way to create jobs in every school district across the country than to renovate our public schools?  This would put thousands of people back to work in every state, thereby increasing tax revenues greatly.  Furthermore, green schools would pay for themselves in a relatively short period of time, when one factors in the savings on heat, gas, and electricity.  Something as simple as replacing the windows to let in less air, or to refit the insulation to save on heating and cooling bills would save millions of public dollars every year.  In short, going in and fixing up our schools saves public money through lowered operational costs, puts thousands of Americans back to work, grows the tax base, and puts a renewed sense of pride back in our schools.  It would be a point of national pride to say that we have the most environmentally friendly public schools in the world.  I have thought long and hard about this particular policy piece, and I cannot think of a good argument against it.  Renovating our schools and public buildings is a policy proposal that should gain national consensus - in fact, I think there are few issues that could garner such broad-based support.  It's time we led the charge to creating a more environmentally friendly world.  It will never happen without our support.