TAX SMACKS

(Excerpts from an e-mail to WAMU's Diane Rehm, 12/10/12:)

You have had a number of shows recently that have taken up some aspect of resolving the fiscal "cliff," and I commend you for it.  I seem to recall one not too long ago where a guest brought up (all too briefly) the FACT of another mortgage-interest deduction for so-called "second" homes, including beach cottages, mountain cabins, RV's and yachts, all of which may be classified as "second homes" and thus interest thereon is deductible.  Now such resources are not usually available for those other than the "well-to-do."  I think it is safe to say that even if a "working stiff" (wage-earner) has a home mortgage-interest deduction, he or she won't likely have a SECOND.

Yet, out of the 15 or 20 people (at least) I have heard address the issue on your show or elsewhere, pontificating one way or the other about the elimination of the home mortgage-interest deduction, only that one recent guest of yours has mentioned the SECOND-home mortgage-interest deduction!  I think it is ludicrous to debate the issue of eliminating the FIRST-home mortgage-interest deduction and to say nothing about the costs of the SECOND-home deduction!

FINALLY, I must ask why don't workers get to deduct residential rents paid?  Wealthier folks get not one but TWO mortgage-interest deductions, while said "working stiffs" who don't own their homes get nothing except the piddly Standard Deduction.  It makes no ECONOMIC sense, as more multi-family housing will be needed as we Baby Boomers age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another serious tax issue NOT being discussed is the negative impact of the FICA (Social Security) payroll tax on the economy.  There has been almost NO discussion of this separate tax, despite the fact that it (12.4%) is assessed on gross wages and salaries up to about $110,000 and on no salaries higher than that.  Nor is FICA assessed on dividends, interest or capital gains, all of which are federally taxed at a measly 15% DESPITE the marginal bracket of the recipient.  FICA is in addition to the state and federal income-tax burdens on workers, it is not deductible from taxable income, so it is levied on GROSS earned income (up to about $110K) without any deductions allowed against it.  It is nominally split between the worker and the employer, but the workers bear the entire economic burden of the FICA tax because ALL available employers must pay it, and those employers will eliminate wages and salaries if they can swap laid-off workers for machines.  After all, there is no payroll tax levied on machinery!

As a result of the utterly stupid BIPARTISAN tax cuts back in 2001, workers and lower-income salaried personnel now pay a disproportionate share of their gross incomes in taxes, when measured as a ratio of after-tax-and-living-expense net income to gross income.  In other words, the more gross income someone realizes, the higher PERCENTAGE (not just total dollars) retained after taxes and living expenses.  This is the TRUE measure of the impact of income taxation: not which share of the population as a group pays the most aggregate dollars.  That is a red herring intended to distract the credulous and ignorant from the serious issue of too much taxation on lower incomes.  I worked out spreadsheets back then that showed the validity of my assertions.  That tax cut was rammed through the Congress so fast I was unable to complete my spreadsheets and study them before the bill became law!  Democrats have been almost incoherent when discussing this matter!

Note also that over half of all households in the US are now grossing less than $60,000 a year.  With two earners therein, that is an average of less than $30,000 each GROSS (pre-tax) income, which is chicken-feed!  Coupled with the widespread reduction or elimination of benefits, it is clear that over half of all Americans and/or their small-scale employers are bearing stupendously heavy burdens.  How many more households supposedly earn more than $60K but less than $75K?  I don't know, but I would bet it's a lot.  Yet we are absurdly debating the horrifying impact of modest income-tax increases on incomes above $250K!  Where is the reality in any of this?  How dumb must people be to even TOLERATE this stupid debate?

I wish to question, as the FICA tax is levied on gross (not after-tax) incomes at the time it is assessed, and the future value of those withholdings (inclusive of earned return) are what is doled out later as Social Security, why is it justifiable for SS receipts to be taxed twice as income?  The withheld FICA previously earned was subjected to the income tax at the time it was withheld, and now people are proposing to tax it again!  That is ludicrous, ESPECIALLY when measured against the one-time 15% levy on dividends, interest and capital gains!  Further, there are current proposals being discussed by the "experts" to defer retirement payouts of Social Security and/or to increase the FICA bite so there will be less need to raise INCOME taxes on wealthier folks (or to cut the Pentagon budget)!  All of that is absurd beyond belief!  Why should the lower-income folks bear an onerously disproportionate FICA burden in order to relieve the wealthy of the additional pittance being asked of them?

There is a lot of Chicken-Little doom and gloom being parroted about the decline of Social Security and the looming bankruptcy of the system, yet the system is currently flush with value (albeit federal IOU's).  Most commentators have gotten their lemming-like "fear factor" from reading the Trustees' Report SUMMARY published in 2009 raising the spectre of eventual bankruptcy of the Social Security Fund.  However, I downloaded both the Summary and the actual Report, and the Report paints a far less gloomy picture than does the Summary.  It pays to go to the source, for the Trustees concluded in the actual Report that future FICA receipts were PREDICTED to be insufficient merely because of their projected declining future birthrate of potential workers!  Also, much agony has been expressed about us Baby Boomers draining the SS Fund, but as I was born in 1946, I will be 89 years old if I live to 2035, the projected year of disaster.  I don't think I will live that long, and I expect the youngest Baby Boomers (at age 74 then) will have also experienced a significant "thinning of the ranks."  I was unable to find anywhere in the 2009 Trustees' Report any discussion of the likely mortality rate of Baby Boomers which would REDUCE the likely claims on the SS Fund!  Their projections seem to assume that ALL OF US will be alive and perniciously draining the Fund of its dwindling resources.

Finally, one should not conflate the maliciously fabricated Social-Security panic with the very real problems with Medicare.  Too many people are jabbering away about "entitlement reform" without being specific and without making any distinction between Social Security and Medicare.  There are important distinctions.  It would also be nice if the "experts" would read the actual Trustees' Report and not rely on just the Summary when pontificating their dreadful conclusions.  I hope you might get a chance to explore all these issues with your future guests.  I hope to be listening.

As you can see, none of this would have fit very well in a phone call!

CONSERVATISM = STUPID?

I have been wrestling with the notion that conservatives have embraced anti-intellectualism as proof of their adherence to the litmus test of biblical "Truth."  The flap over Sen. Marco Rubio's recent GQ interview comments about the age of the Earth (roughly 10,000 years) has revived my thinking on this matter.

Back in college I was president of the Young Republicans and a fervent Goldwater "conservative," even though I was not old enough to vote.   My first vote, however, was cast when I was only 20 years old in the summer of 1967 at an American consulate in Munich, Germany.  I was due to turn 21 by the general election, so I was allowed to vote in the Va. Democratic primary that summer.  Back then there were no more than 5 or 6 Republicans in the House of Delegates, and most Democrats were pretty "conservative" back then.  (Most of them later migrated to the Republican Party, including Gov. Mills Godwin.  George McGovern's opposition to the Vietnam War drove a lot of them out of the Democratic Party.)

But also back then, conservatives like myself did not identify with know-nothing anti-intellectualism.  In fact, "conservatism" was itself considered somewhat intellectual, bolstered by the rising prominence of William F. Buckley, Jr.  In any event, I recall no quarrel with what was assumed to be scientifically-based FACT.  Conservatism was about POLITICAL ideas and opinions, not science.  With the presidential advent of the incredible "Know-Nothing-in-Chief," Ronald Reagan, who cleverly welcomed the religiously disaffected into the Republican Party, the definition of "conservatism" evolved quite differently from what I had thought it to mean.  Some smarter, more educated Republicans were dismayed by that but, unfortunately, they went along with it because it meant more votes and more political power.  About that time, and consistent with what was happening generally in the Republican Party, Buckley enunciated his support of anti-choice pregnancy policy and the attendant criminalization thereof, and a breach seemed to be forming in the conservative notion of individual liberty.  Ronald Reagan embraced those policies to get elected President, with the help of the anti-intellectuals, and thus the Republican Party was transformed, for the worse.

It seems to me that conservatism has always had a legitimate role in promoting its ideas in areas of opinion and government policy, like regulating or limiting government benefits, taxation, war policies and financing and the merits or demerits of a social "safety net."  That has traditionally been the most fertile ground for the creative aspects of conservatism.  But when the redefined "conservatism" picks fights with fairly settled scientific fact, it is way off-base, as Senator Rubio's initial comments about the age of the Earth indicate.  Rubio later quickly revised his remarks when confronted with overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, but he then "hedged" by asserting that parents should be free to teach their children utter pseudo-religious nonsense if they wished.

To the extent that "conservatism" is seen as embracing notions hostile to fairly well-settled science, it deserves to be called "stupid."  Even Republican La. Gov. Bobby Jindal has recognized that.  Those anti-intellectual notions include asserting coexistence of humans and dinosaurs (thus disputing Evolution and the much older age of the Earth than as described in Genesis), asserting homosexuality as a choice and its "reversibility," denying the human contribution to "global warming," asserting the unlikely possibility of pregnancy by rape, proclaiming the innate intellectual inferiority of other races, and disputing other biological and scientific matters for which exist considerable amounts of contrary empirical data that are consistent in their support of scientific "theory."  Plus, there is also the notion that scientific "theory" is nothing more than "opinion" or "hypothesis," like the theory of gravity.  Therefore, as it is OK to have differing opinions on matters of government policy, so may one have differing opinions about scientific matters if they are contrary which what is claimed to be written in the Bible, which is definitely NOT a scientific treatise.  Scientific "theory" is a lot more certain and is more backed up by empirical evidence than mere "hypothesis," a distinction lost on the know-nothings, most of whom have no more than a high-school education and harbor barely concealed jealousy of the more-educated among us.

President George W. Bush, a graduate of both Yale and Harvard Business School, famously said that "the jury is still out" on Evolution.  Now, whether or not he really believes that to be true is less important than the mere fact that he said it.  Whether he was stating a matter of personal opinion is no more important (nor reliable) than if he was merely pandering to the religiously intolerant know-nothings who abound in the Republican Party.  There are those know-nothings who believe that Evolution asserts human descent from apes when, in fact, it asserts that humans and apes likely had a common ancestor from which both lines are descendant.  Similar beliefs fail to distinguish between the research and conclusions of Charles Darwin ("natural selection") and the larger issues within Evolution.

I believe most of this know-nothing anti-intellectualism is attributable to the fact that most well-educated folks are perceived as "liberal" (like Al Gore); thus, neither they nor their "theories" are worthy of respect.  The hostility is real, actually on both sides, as the well-educated understandably scorn the know-nothings who yet express such absurd opinions about scientific matters.  I know that I do.  In the New York Times recently there was an op-ed piece about the Rubio matter by Charles M. Blow that laid out the following statistics: 

Only 6% of scientists identify themselves as "Republican";

Only 15% of college professors identify themselves as "conservative," thus reinforcing the notion of "liberal bias" on college campuses;

58% of self-identified Republicans believe "God" created humans in their current form less than 10,000 years ago.

It utterly escapes those True Believers that the reason so few scientists and college professors self-identify as "conservative" might be because credulous know-nothings are not welcome in such circles!  They are called "dumb-asses" for a reason!

According to Blow, taxpayers in Louisiana are being assessed the costs of private education (under notions of school "choice") for children to be brainwashed with such hyper-religious nonsense as that dinosaurs roamed the Garden of Eden, that Evolution is merely an unreliable crackpot "guess" about the origins of humans, that the Loch Ness monster really exists, etc.  Where does this crap come from?  WHY is the Republican Party home to such foolishness?  Fortunately, a state judge recently ruled as unconstitutional the Louisiana statute that Gov. Jindal signed that overtly promotes Creationism with those "choice" vouchers.  But, it's also going on in several other states.  The state of Kentucky (which Mitt Romney won) has recently approved diversion of $44 Million of taxpayer money as tax incentives for the building of a Creationist theme park.  Jesus wept!

This foolishness is blatantly unconstitutional, anti-intellectual and it must stop.  So long as the Republican Party, however, is held hostage to such nonsense by its members and leaders, it will continue.  Arguably, Barack Obama could have been defeated this year had the Republicans not been seen mostly as a pack of slavering idiots.  The insults and horrific nonsense thrown at Obama and "liberals" by many Republicans certainly helped generate sympathy and votes for Obama.  Republicans need only look in the mirror to see who is most at fault for the loss.

So long as Republicans fail to distinguish those matters which may be addressed by opinion and the matters concerning settled scientific fact, they will and should be dismissed as "stupid."

DAVE BRUBECK, d. December 5, 2012

Dave Brubeck died yesterday at the age of 91.  I think there was no other musician who gave me a sense of what the 1960's could be about. listening to his very sophisticated use of 5/4 time in "Take Five" or his other famous jazz pieces, "Blue Rondo a la Turk," "Three To Get Ready," "Bossa Nova USA," etc.

Even though he was almost as old as my parents, I thought of him as an ultra-cool almost-contemporary, expressing both youth and sophistication at the same time with his extraordinary music.  I thought both he and I would live forever.  Reading about his death abruptly jerks me into the reality of knowing how much older I am now, as when the person you once knew as a baby now stands before you as a college graduate, or even a parent herself!

My musical tastes and preferences have changed over the years, from rock 'n' roll, to soul, to beach music, to the Beatles & Stones, to bluegrass, to (traditional) country, to psychedelic, to Little Feat, to Big Band, to jazz, etc.  Those are not sharp delineations, they all just "evolved" into each other.  (I NEVER liked rap "music"!)  But, I have always enjoyed listening to Brubeck.  Now, I somehow find myself smack in the middle of trying to sell blues music in a shrinking market, knowing I'll never be as good a sax player as Jr. Walker or Paul Desmond.  Instead, I SHOULD just be collecting my Social Security, taking my numerous pills and trying to figure out which Medicare supplemental insurance plan to choose by December 7!  And, with frost on the ground, there is definitely going to be a "nip" in the air tomorrow!  (I never liked doing what I SHOULD!)

Thanks to modern technology, Dave Brubeck's music will live forever, even as he has died.  I am just amazed that my iPod, smaller than a soft book of matches, stores over 3500 songs!  Some of those songs and albums are Dave Brubeck's music.  I can and will be listening to Dave, until I die.

December 6, 2012.

HOLY WINDSPRINTS, BATMAN!

There is, truly, nothing more pathetic than some fat kid running wind-sprints in full-dress football regalia.  But, that was my fate for being a smart-ass in Sunday School.  I played defensive tackle on the JV football team, a position just about as depraved as anything might be for a 15-year-old kid.  I was big and fat and not very fast.  I absolutely HATED football!  (Still do!)  Defensive tackles get hit on almost every play and rarely, if ever, get to score points for the team or with girls.  If the defensive tackles make tackles on opposing runners, that is just doing one’s expected job.  Utterly unremarkable.  MISS a tackle, and you are the worthless scum of the Earth!

The assistant football coach, a man of rigid moralities and rectitude, was ALSO my Presbyterian Sunday-School teacher as well as being an English teacher in the high school.  One day in Sunday School he made the unfortunate mistake of trying to explain “Predestination,” a core tenet of the Presbyterian Church in which I was raised.  I am sure it substantially contributed to my ultimate decision to become an atheist.  I really could not stand the notion of having my life (eternal or otherwise) so certainly planned out!

After “Coach” had taken an initial stab at explaining the core doctrine of Predestination, I leaned back in my chair and, with a poorly concealed smirk on my face, I suggested that as our souls’ ultimate fate of doom or saving had already been determined, then it should make no difference at all how we behaved in life, since the die of salvation had already been cast!  That seemed VERY logical to me!  “Coach” quickly backed up and reproached me for blatant illogic!  He pointed out that, while our salvation might well be predetermined in an ordinary sense, we might well fulfill the predicted course of conduct that would take us straight to Hell, thus dooming our souls to deserved eternal damnation!  On the other hand, if we struggled in righteousness, we might yet be forgiven our sins and be able to sneak through the portals of Heaven, just ahead of the iron grasp of Satan!  WHEW!

Nevertheless, sensing no danger, I pressed my case.  I insisted on arguing the point that if we could, somehow, foil the predicted outcome, then that would surely impeach the notion of Predestination, as our self-actuated salvation could not possibly be “predetermined” if we had the power to change it!  “Coach” was not amused.

In fact, “Coach” was annoyed.  And, it did not occur to the 15-year-old mind with the foresight of a garden slug that the righteous man before him would actually indulge in petty revenge for a 15-year-old being a smart-ass!  But, he did!  The next day, Monday, football practice was scheduled after school, per usual.  After I had turned out on the field and run the obligatory warm-up laps with my teammates on the track surrounding the practice field, “Coach” ordered me to take a few WIND-SPRINTS on the unused portion of the practice field!  By myself.  I got an uneasy feeling for being alone in this venture.

I finished about 5 round trips and announced that I had done so, quite winded from the experience and having set no land-speed records in doing so.  “Coach” then ordered me to provide further evidence of my invincibility!  I could not believe my fate (nor understand it) as I had not (yet) linked my Sunday queries with my current misfortune.  I threw my helmet on the ground and shuffled off to the Zone of Death again, sort of dragging my feet along as I “pranced” half-heartedly up and down the field.  “Coach” yelled at me to “pick it up”!

Upon my return, I breathlessly announced that I had completed another 5 round trips, and “Coach” ordered me back down the field again, telling me THIS TIME that my destiny to run wind-sprints was PRE-determined, as I would surely eventually realize!  At that point, the horror of my ways dawned on me!  I could not go much further and, after another stretch, shuffled over to the area where my teammates were laying about, collapsed on the ground and almost fainted.  “Coach” walked over and looked down condescendingly at my limp body and told me that one day I would be thankful that the Lord was helping me build a strong body!  I have to say that I did not share his gratitude.  I actually wondered if “the Lord” might make me run wind-sprints in Heaven!  Satan probably would in Hell!

I was much more circumspect thereafter, seeking to curb my smart-ass ways in Sunday School, but after the end of football season, I was back to my usual heathen existence.

JEWISH GUILT

(From an e-mail sent September 14, 2012.)

One is obliged to separate the nation of Israel from the ethnic identity of Jews.  They are not synonymous.

HOWEVER--

If there is any group of people anywhere in the world who know how to instill guilt, it is the Jews!  They seemingly learn this from their mothers, and the US has been atoning for the Holocaust ever since WWII, even though blameless!  Of course, the post-war Allied moguls made sure that the State of Israel was created for the Holocaust Jews so that the Jews would go there and not come to THEIR countries!

Now the "Holocaust Guilt Package" has been further augmented by the Republican doctrine of the "End of Days" when (as witless, bigoted evangelicals are convinced), during the Rapture in the "Holy Land," i.e., border-expanded Israel, Jews will surely all convert to Christianity and be saved by Jesus then be swept into Heaven (along with all the Jew souls that have, thankfully, been converted, post-mortem, by the Mormons), and the rest of us schlubs (including known Muslims like Barack Obama) can just burn in Hell forever!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  I can't wait!

So, we were recently assured that the Republican platform was righteous enough to mention "God" at least 5 times and also reinforced their political-theological embrace of the State of Israel, unlike the proto-atheist heathens in the Democratic Party who were finally "brave" enough to railroad a platform amendment from the floor of the Convention to mention "God " and "Israel," despite the firmly hostile "NO" vote clearly heard on the issue!  Now, the Democrats are clearly stand-up kinda guys for principle, just like their feckless, spineless, betraying leader, Barack Obama, who was reportedly the engineer of the locomotive on that "railroad"!

We know that Israel ALREADY has nukes, so why should not Iran seek a strike-back capability to discourage a pre-emptive strike by Israel?  The threats have been levied time and again, and we also know that if it happens, the US government and Obama won't do one single thing about it, except "tsk-tsk."  All the heated rhetoric from US government sources about Iran's ALLEGED nuke capability justifiably invites Israel's first-strike against Iran!  Scare the Hell out of everybody, then do as you please!  A strangely familiar climate following 9/11/01!  Neat!

Some years ago in his book on the subject, former President Jimmy Carter compared the policies of Israel toward Arabs and Muslims as "apartheid," and that stuck in the craw of the political leaders of Israel and the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).  It is way past time for the US to decouple its Middle East policies from Holocaust guilt.

STATES' WRONGS (Part 2)

(See Part 1 below, 7/31/11.  The following ran as a letter to the Editor of the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on September 13, 2012.)

According to "Wikipedia," the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (incorporating the "Principles of [17]98") were written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively and were merely their individual OPINIONS about the asserted POWER (not "right") of the states to refuse to enforce federal constitutional principles, smugly repeated by Pauline Madden in [the T-D] on August 31.  Those opinions embracing "nullification" and "interposition" (a/k/a "states' rights") were clearly rejected by the outcome of the Civil War, so one must wonder about those who, like Madden, continue to beat that dead horse today.  Seven of the new states pointedly REJECTED adopting those Resolutions.  None of the 13 original states adopted them.  George Washington was vehemently opposed to them.

Jefferson and Madison did not like the idea of the federal courts being the sole judges of the constitutionality of federal acts, as Alexander Hamilton had asserted in the Federalist Papers (incidentally co-authored by James Madison).  Most opinions of the day agreed with Hamilton's views on the matter, that the federal courts should be the EXCLUSIVE arbiter of federal constitutional law.  This view was buttressed by John Marshall's opinion in 1803 establishing the principle of (federal) judicial review in MARBURY vs. MADISON.

The phrase, "states' rights," does not appear in the US Constitution anywhere.  There is no expression therein of the powers of "nullification" nor "interposition" nor "secession."  I think it's way past time to give all that "states' rights" foolishness a rest.

SUPPLY-SIDE NONSENSE

On August 14, I had to turn off "Morning Joe" in anger as I watched Chris Matthews and Gene Robinson (among others) sit silently while Joe Scarborough ranted and raved typical Republican supply-side nonsense about the economy.  Democrats are NOT going to win the economic debates (nor will the world economy recover) until the dominance of Ronald Reagan's "supply-side" fantasies is vanquished, once and for all.

Basically, Scarborough's rant attacked Democrats' presumably desired taxation of rich folks and union preferences and "Obama-care" as creating fear and uncertainty among the various "job-creators" out there who, BUT FOR the onerous future risks of higher taxes and employment costs, would magically start hiring all those folks either unemployed or doing part-time work to come back to full-time jobs that are just idling in some sort of economic "Purgatory," just waiting to be filled when said onerous future risks are demolished by Mitt Romney (buttressed by the laser-focused views of Paul Ryan) and thus resolved in favor of said "job-creators."  This fear and uncertainty is, of course, magnified and emboldened by all those "lame-stream journalists" out there who are OBVIOUSLY liberal and OBVIOUSLY Democrats and who favor Obama's tax-and-spend philosophies.

I think that is a fair assessment of Scarborough's positions as he laid them out this morning, and I assume that many (if not most) Republicans embrace those views.

So, as someone else has already asked, if the "supply-side" approach of lower taxes on "job-creators" and other wealthier folks works, then what happened to all the jobs that should have magically appeared after income taxes (but not payroll taxes) were ridiculously cut in 2001 by pernicious Republicans and spineless Democrats?  Before he died, Steve Jobs famously told Barack Obama that all those manufacturing jobs that had migrated to the Third World during the previous 20 years were simply NOT coming back, and to get over it!  Jobs was right, and the simple facts are that the US economy is going to have to reinvent itself away from traditional manufacturing.  When Chrysler and GM were bailed out to avoid bankruptcy, Democrats (including Obama) crowed that the assembly-line jobs were being saved.  Perhaps so, in the short run, but what was REALLY saved in the long run were the aggregate investment of shareholders and bankers and the white-collar jobs of senior management.  IF there were consumers who desired American-built cars and would buy them if available, then those assembly-line workers would have EVENTUALLY found employment elsewhere, to satisfy whatever DEMAND there was for such automobiles.  The shareholders, lenders and managers of Chrysler and GM may have been devastated by a lack of government bail-out of those companies, but the workers would have found whatever work there was to satisfy whatever demand was to be had.  I think the wrong interests were saved by those Democrat-approved bail-outs.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SUPPLY-SIDE" MARKET!  Why are we STILL debating this crap 24 years after Ronald Reagan left office?  Even David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Director who invented the concept of "supply-side," now admits it was a fabricated bunch of hooey.  All markets are demand-driven--that is, there is no market for sellers or manufacturers of goods or services unless there is a demand for whatever.  And, unless ordinary people have spending money in their pockets, there won't be any DEMAND in the marketplace!  Why is something so seemingly simple so hard for politicians to embrace?  Giving the fewer upper-income folks more spending money than they already have is not going to recover ANY market!  The largesse must be spread among a greater number of consumers.  Ideally, they would have more spending money if they had more jobs, but the jobs simply are not there.  Joe Scarborough is wrong.  "Job-creators" don't have jobs to magically create unless and until somebody wants to buy their stuff.  And, if the jobs are not (yet) available, then the spending money is going to HAVE to come from the government.  It will patently not "trickle down" as chump-change from the overflowing pockets of the lower-taxed wealthy.

Why are we still debating these points?  Why don't Democrats quit trying to embrace "supply-side" and look at markets as they really exist?  Because, Democrats instinctively distrust market philosophy and simply don't bother to master it, when it can work in favor of Democrats' presumed objectives.  Despite the compelling logic, they are simply too ignorant (or corrupt) to effectively defend their own positions.

Most Republicans just fabricate market "witchcraft" to suit their predispositions to cut income taxes on wealthier folks (who, unlike workers, do not pay much in payroll taxes).  At least Republicans serve their wealthier constituency consistently and effectively.  Democrats, the alleged "Party of the People," are mostly clueless.  Like Barack Obama, they have bought into the line that cutting taxes (despite the military-driven deficits) will produce prosperity, so they advocate continued overseas imperialism and keeping taxes lower for those earning up to $250.000, while HALF of all American households gross less than $50,000 annually!  To be sure, many in the lower half don't vote, so they have only themselves to blame, but those are facts.  They can't be bothered to vote their own interests because NEITHER major political party is focused on those interests.  Democrats are chasing big bucks like Republicans, and the ordinary folks can just go suck eggs!

The single greatest consumption engine the world has ever seen, the Baby Boomers, are aging, and our consumption is drying up.  Most of us born before 1960 have bought our last piece of real estate and perhaps our last new vehicle, washing machine, refrigerator, whatever.  Who is going to replace us?  The world economy is in the toilet substantially because the Baby Boomers are cutting back.  The much-lamented feeble savings rate will likely start to rise again as Boomers get older and more paranoid about the future, like their elders have done throughout the ages.  Where has all that buying power gone?  They can't sell enough disposable diapers to recover the world economy!

Politicians, economists, pundits, voters, all need to think about consumption and demand, not supply, especially in the US.  As working-class buying power continues to shrink, so shall US wallets.

NATIONAL INTERESTS

[The following is taken from an e-mail of 5/20/2012 in response to an assertion that a majority of Americans, even Republicans, poll opposition to the current hostilities in central Asia and the Arabian Peninsula.]

To be sure, many Americans POLL particular opposition to "The War," but they are also scared shitless about "tar-rism," and they see nothing fundamentally wrong with a president autocratically taking offensive military action (or murdering unarmed "tar-rists") on foreign soil without a congressional declaration of war, SO LONG AS they are patted on the head and are told it will suppress "tar-rism" or is otherwise in the nebulous, shifting, shadowy, bureaucratically-defined "National Interest" of America!  This has been our dominant, politically-driven foreign and military philosophy since WWII.

I am very concerned that NEITHER major political party is willing to honor the constitutional restraints on executive power, the very thing (Mr. Scalia) most of the Founders were extremely concerned about.  Had our Fearless Leaders over the years been thus concerned, MAYBE we would not have been so victimized by "tar-rists," and the Twin Towers might still be standing, but now we will never know because most everybody is thoroughly addicted to saber-rattling, muscle-flexing, drone-bombing, Executive-Branch-fashioned American imperialism.  As Mel Brooks said, "It is GOOD to be king!"

The two majors may disagree on HOW "Separation of Powers" should be thus dishonored, but leaders in each have their own set of "core principles" by which they easily rationalize constitutional disregard as desired.  THAT is our real problem, and the "booboisee" (thank you, H. L. Mencken) have no clue!  Mitt Romney may be a an addled dunce, but Barack Obama is our current "problem."  How might we intimidate and control those who are willing to commit suicide for THEIR core principles?  Kill 'em all?  Good luck.  Round 'em up and send 'em to Gitmo?  How many unconstitutional kangaroo courts ("military tribunals") do we create at taxpayer expense to put on sham trials for those folks?  Who is fooled by all of that nonsense, besides gullible American "patriots"?  

Most Americans hardly care, so long as it's somebody else doing the fighting and bleeding and dying while waving the Flag!  Most Americans are a pathetic, witless gaggle of armchair patriots!  It was proven thus during the Vietnam War, and it is being proven again in central Asia and the Arabian Peninsula.

Yee-hah!

THEOLOGIANS AND ATHEISTS

A close friend reported going to hear a theologian talk about atheism. I sent him the following reply:

I am fascinated by all these "reverends" and "theologians" speaking about atheism. It really does twist their little pointy tails right up! I think a lot of folks are really bugged that there are some of us out here who just don't buy into the "fairy tales." They are desperate to refute what they THINK we are saying! I think they are scared we might be RIGHT! Before he died, Christopher Hitchens was one of the few atheists going around and talking about it. Most of us hide in the closet. It's not a popular philosophy. But for the most part, atheism gets discussed by those who are hostile to it, so their objectivity is open to question.

I am NOT "anti-theistic." Some atheists are, but I think that is a different kettle of fish entirely, and I think it's dishonest and counter-productive. If one is truly "anti-theist," then he or she is self-encumbered with a burden to prove the NON-existence of a deity, and that is absurd! I can't PROVE a goddamned thing! I have no clue whether there is a deity out there or not. But, I just don't care! As Bill Maher said a few weeks ago, if God will show an unambiguous sign and/or his followers can prove his existence, then I shall immediately change my mind! PRAISE THE LORD! But, until that proof is forthcoming, I CHOOSE to be a skeptic. I CHOOSE to simply not believe. I recognize I could be wrong, but I DON'T CARE! I also do not speak for any other atheist. There is as much variation among atheists as there is among Episcopalians. Some atheists may vehemently disagree with my views!

The magician, Penn Jillette, says there is really no such thing as "agnostic." If one says he or she "does not know" IF there is a deity, then that means they simply do NOT believe there is a deity! One either KNOWS it or does not KNOW it! There is no inbetween. All True Believers (the ones I have talked to) will say they KNOW God exists! It is a moral certainty for them. Fine. I am glad they are certain. They COULD be right! I DON'T CARE! (I personally think they are "whistling by the graveyard"!) But if one does not KNOW, then one cannot possibly believe in the affirmative, which is the true posture of an atheist. A true atheist is not CERTAIN, either. The true scientist is never certain of anything, for a fundamental element of the scientific "persuasion" is that anything a true scientist believes could be proven false AT ANY TIME! That is the essence of the "scientific method": the RISK of being proven wrong!

How many True Believers are willing to admit the POSSIBILITY of error? I have yet to meet one! In his wonderful opera, Faust, Randy Newman has the "Satan" character saying that "religion is the product of a desperate mind that knows it is going to die"!

About 15 years ago, I was interviewed by the local Episcopal rector who was working on his doctoral dissertation, and he was obliged to interview an atheist or agnostic, so he asked to talk to me. He came by my house and we had a very pleasant discussion for about 2 hours. I liked him a lot and considered him a friend. The local Methodist minister was also a friend, and the local Baptist minister and his wife were clients and came to a couple of my wild-ass parties! I guess they felt "safe" there to have a good time, and they did!

I am not anti-theist, but I am anti-establishmentarian. The US may well be a "Christian nation" (whatever in the hell that means), but we are supposed to have a secular government. I try to keep that on the level! I am obliged to defend the rights of others to worship who- or whatever they wish, but I don't have to buy into their silliness.

BIPARTISAN EMASCULATIONS

Regardless of what US voters think they want, or what we've all been conditioned to accept, there is no constitutional authority for the kind of militaristic colonial adventurism that has been going on in this country since World War II and the "reign" of John Foster Dulles and his ilk over foreign policy. If taxpayers are forced to maintain a military force far greater than necessary to protect us, that military force must and will find stupid things to do at taxpayer expense. It's like firemen who go out and start fires to put out because they get bored just sitting around the firehouse--amazingly, much arson is committed by trained fire personnel!

Regardless of all the arguments about what a dangerous world we live in, etc., US colonial adventurism and our penchant for making deals with the wrong local devils (until they are shoved up our asses) has gotten the US into a lot of unnecessary conflict. We justify maintaining a huge standing army for the very reason that our "bipartisan" policies since World War II have been pretty much the same: meddling in the affairs of other cultures and nations and trying to jam their square pegs into our round holes. Our leaders and many voters routinely assume that because no other nation is willing to expend lives and treasure doing that sort of thing that we have no choice but to step into the breach, in mutually bipartisan lunacy. Any reluctance is belittled as cowardice and/or lack of "patriotism."

Notwithstanding the Taliban's perverted social views, they should not be confused nor conflated with Al-Qaida, as so many operatives in both parties and in the military have done. Had the US not been mucking around in Saudi Arabia, it is arguable that the disaster of 9/11/01 would not have occurred. Afghanistan is not a "country": it is a mostly anarchic geographic space between countries! It has no national identity, regardless of which stooge we put in power. The US and its military have no business whatsoever being in central Asia, arrogantly engaging in "nation-building." And, in a fit of hyperbolic patriotism on the part of most everyone, including most of the so-called "press," the US has embarked on an 11-year military exercise in central Asia that is utterly unauthorized by the Constitution, and almost nobody gives a damn because it makes us feel good to go out and kick some "towel-head" ass! Show 'em who's boss!

Tell that to the poor guy whose penis got shot off in Fallujah, fightin' for his country! How many medals will compensate for that?

The rest of us are almost totally disengaged from what has been going on over there, and that is no way to run a "war"! The "good" thing about a congressional declaration of war is that it won't pass unless the need is critical and support is broad, and IF it passes, the nation has no choice but to become engaged. Executive-Branch war-making is blatantly unconstitutional. But that is all we have had since World War II, and every such conflict has been utterly failed, futile nonsense. The US should immediately stop what its personnel are doing in central Asia and get the hell completely out of there--right now! Support the troops! Declare "victory" and bring 'em all home!

And as for 9/11/01, what happened in the US back then was a set of horrific crimes, not "acts of war." The entire mess should have been handled as civilian criminal prosecutions from the very beginning, with proper due process for all suspects. Instead, it was used as a deadly pretext for playing "soldier" with taxpayer dollars and conveniently suspending constitutional guarantees of due process, creating very bad legal precedents in the process. That was all done in "bipartisan" fashion and continues as such under Barack Obama, who campaigned quite to the contrary in 2008. To paraphrase a friend's father (discussing partnerships), "bipartisanship" is the sorriest ship that ever sailed the seas!

And as conservative humor-writer and commentator P. J. O'Rourke says, "bipartisanship" one of the most dangerous words in the English language!

THE CONSTITUTION AND BIRTH CONTROL

[The following ran, slightly edited, as "Correspondent of the Day" in the Richmond, Virginia Times Dispatch on Saturday, March 17, 2012.]

Your "Correspondent of the Day" for March 12, Rev. Msgr. Michael McCarron of Williamsburg, erroneously asserts that totally voluntary hospital operations of the Catholic Church have a constitutional right to be treated differently from other hospitals merely because of the religious affiliation. He is simply wrong. Like the taxable parking garage owned by St. Paul's (Episcopal) Church in downtown Richmond, as a secular operation a Catholic hospital must and should account to the government the same as other hospitals. A Catholic hospital is a health agency, not a church. Its association with the Catholic Church is merely incidental to its primary function, and it enjoys a government-protected territorial monopoly and receives secular government assistance, the same as other hospitals. The Constitution arguably (1) ensures secular government and (2) protects the practice of religion by individuals and their institutions of WORSHIP. It does not prevent accountability for secular operations. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of religion."

All hospitals in Virginia must first obtain "Certificates of Necessity" granting a virtual monopoly for the territory to be served by the hospital. One may not simply "open a hospital." Recently, the federal government proposed that hospitals (generally) provide employees with adequate medical care, INCLUDING birth control. The Catholic hospitals were not singled out in this regard. If the Catholic Church wants to make money off its monopoly hospitals and receive public assistance, it should expect to "pony up," the same as any other hospital operator. Instead, it claims a "right" to a special EXCEPTION from universal regulation where none lawfully exists.

If a church is going to establish a hospital, it must obviously abide by government regulations targeting the health of the patients. By Msgr. McCarron's tortured logic, a church-related hospital would be constitutionally exempt from compliance with any health regulation deemed to be in violation of its sponsor's subjective dogma. For example, consider a hospital established by religious snake-handlers that might refuse to treat poisonous snakebites deemed to be inflicted upon presumably wicked victims by the hand of God. Would such ludicrous refusal be protected under the Constitution? I doubt it. (I am not here suggesting an equivalency between snakebites and birth control, although I am tempted!)

If the Catholic Church does not want to dispense birth control information or devices, its members may certainly lobby in opposition to the relevant hospital regulations generally, and/or it can just get out of the hospital business.

"CRACKER" REPUBLICANS AND THE RULE OF LAW Or, How I became a switch hitter!

Back in the 1960's I was Chair of the Young Republicans chapter at a small Virginia men's college and a self-described "conservative" Goldwater supporter! I saw the beginnings of the flocking of racist Southern Democrats into the Republican Party, beginning during the Nixon Administration and the payoff of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" run by Harry Dent, Jr., a racist Republican operative from South Carolina. I was horrified to watch Republican Nixon recruiting and openly campaigning for incumbent racist Southern Dems against duly nominated Republican candidates in the 1970 congressional elections, and by the time of George McGovern's Democratic presidential nomination in 1972, the goose was pretty much cooked. Most of the Southern Dems (not all, though) had migrated to the Republican Party or were well on their way. McGovern's nomination was the last straw for many.

To be sure, not every Republican is a practicing racist, but practically all practicing racists and bigots are now proclaimed Republicans! Nixon welcomed the racists, and Ronald Reagan welcomed the homophobic bigots and religious bigots into the Republican Party. The Republican Party has become what it is today thanks to Nixon and Reagan and the trailer-trash "crackers" they welcomed into the Party.

I realized I could no longer co-exist in the Republican Party with those types, so I left, wandering in the political wilderness for about four to five years. I voted for Libertarian Roger MacBride in 1976; I could not bring myself to vote for the cretin (Ford) who stupidly pardoned Nixon before he admitted to anything, and I could not bring myself to vote for a shamelessly evangelical Christian (Carter). However, I later came to respect Jimmy Carter as the real deal and was an enthusiastic supporter for him in 1980, partly because Reagan scared the bejeezus out of me! As an independent, I had supported "convenient" Dem Chuck Robb for Virginia Lieutenant Governor in 1977, and I attended my first Virginia Democratic Convention as a Delegate in 1978. I became Chair of a county Democratic chapter in Virginia in early 1979, and I resigned Election Night in 1981 (before the results were announced) when (finally committed) Dem Robb was elected Governor. The wife of my successor as Chair had a bad stroke about a year later, and he was totally distracted with that thereafter, so I wound up effectively serving as "Chair pro-tem" for another few years. I willingly did most of the work and had no real title. I didn't care about the "title," though.  The work had to be done.  The "Reagan Years" were not popular times for Dems in Virginia, regardless.

I supported Bill Clinton (not my first choice for the nomination) in 1992, but I resigned from the Democratic Party (I was more or less asked to get out) in late 1995 because I knew I would not support Bill Clinton for re-election in 1996. I had been complaining vehemently about his "Wrong-Wing" triangulation tilt with fascist Republican Dick Morris. It seriously annoyed the True Believers in the Democratic Party who would brook no dissent within. I can't remember for whom I voted in 1996--it may have been the Libertarian candidate. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because I could not stand nor trust Al Gore or Joe Lieberman. Contrary to the wishful thinking of excuse-mongering Dems, Nader did not cost Al Gore the Election! Gore lost that election all by himself!

In 2004, I mistakenly thought that John Kerry had a chance to take Virginia, so I voted for him, despite the fact that I have never liked or trusted him, either. He predictably lost. For me, getting rid of Bush that year was a high priority. He is arguably the most dangerous, evil President we've ever had. I never thought I would say so, but he was much worse than Nixon!

I gladly supported Barack Obama in 2008. The notion that Sarah Palin might be one of John McCain's feeble heartbeats away from the Presidency was frightening in its implications. The recently-shown HBO drama, "Game Change," only confirms my thinking. Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to hold any elective office! She is a vapid, silly ditz! Unfortunately, I have come to refer to Obama as "Prez Origami," because he folds so easily and will assume any shape desired! It seems he has squandered almost his entire Presidency so far trying to validate George W. Bush's absurd policies. He has thrown "Hope 'n' Change" out the window! In fact, "Hope" has become "Nope."

As despicable as Osama bin Laden seemed, all we really know about him is what the government has told us! In 2011, bin Laden was summarily shot on Obama's orders, unarmed (probably in the back of his head, gangster-style, with his arms secured behind his back), and his body was conveniently dumped at sea (so there could be no autopsy showing how close the gun may have been to the back of his head). Instead, the Constitution requires that he should have been arrested, brought to trial in a civilian court with a lawyer, a jury, right of cross-exam, etc. in accordance with the Sixth Amendment. Now, I realize this procedure fails to satisfy the blood-lust for vengeance that stupidly infects many Americans' thinking. Because they rigidly believe the US is a "democracy" (George W. Bush said so), many seem to think that "due process" ought to be put to a vote. However, it is well to remember that the purest form of "democracy" is a lynch mob, because everyone in attendance agrees on the outcome, except for the victim!

Although the US Supreme Court has limited the reach of constitutional due process to US citizens or on US soil, there are no such limitations written into the Constitution. Had bin Laden been convicted in a civilian court (as I suspect he would have been), then he should have been punished in accordance with our Constitution, which Obama and everybody else has sworn to support and defend, without exceptions. The possibility that Obama had his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the oath of office does not count! The fact that I am outnumbered by those who angrily disagree with me does not mean that I am wrong!

War, especially all the undeclared "pseudo-wars" we've had since WWII, is never an excuse to evade the requirements of the Constitution. The Congress has not formally declared war any time since World War II, and the President does not have war-making powers specifically granted under Article II, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has mostly abdicated its proper oversight of military and foreign policy in rather cowardly fashion. There are no such exceptions in Article III of the Constitution, and "military tribunals" established and controlled under Article II are also not authorized under the Constitution! All of that seems to bother very few people, however.

Republicans and "tea-baggers" are raising complaints about Obama that are mostly silly and seemingly racist in their purpose and motive. There is plenty to legitimately criticize Obama about, such as Obama wrongfully continuing and escalating the pseudo-wars in central Asia, his renewal of the vile USA PATRIOT Act by autopen and, most reprehensibly, his recent signing of the Military Authorization Act that permits indefinite detention and even "rendering" of persons (including US citizens) "suspected" by SOMEBODY in the Executive Branch of "terrorism," all without lawyers or trials or other pesky "legal technicalities." That is blatantly unconstitutional, but Obama, being the chameleon that he is, signed it anyway while bleating about his reservations with it!  WHAT "reservations"?

I had a front-row seat to the sad racist conversion of the Republican Party in the 1970's. I had no choice but to leave.

HEALTHCARE FOR REAL

The recently adopted healthcare law (herein "Obamacare" for convenience) should be overturned by the US Supreme Court on grounds of unconstitutionality and/or be repealed by the Congress. In its place should be adopted a new, truly UNIVERSAL, publicly-funded healthcare law--WITHOUT ANY REQUIRED INSURANCE-CO. PARTICIPATION--and no employer mandates, the kind of plan that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama killed. A proper plan should be government-run/single-payer/"Medicare For All," as others have called it. The government system (Medicare) is already in place. The size of a patient's co-pay or annual contribution could and should be means-tested, but the bulk (80%?) of the cost ought to be covered by higher INCOME (not payroll) taxes. In fact, the current 2.9% regressive Medicare payroll taxI should be totally repealed. It is a needless burden on workers and employers. An ill-advised increase is being planned, however, to offset rising costs in Medicare. That may well aggravate current unemployment and "under-employment" and business stagnation.

Yes, there would be fraud, but it could be "managed." (That kind of fraud would not be nearly as bad as current military procurement fraud, for example.) Unlike "Obamacare," primary participation by insurance companies should be superfluous. There is simply no need for a proper healthcare system to allow health insurance companies, acting as "middlemen," to skim off their unnecessary share of the cashflow. They could, instead, market supplemental plans like current Medicare supplementals. "Medical Insurance" is not synonymous for "Healthcare"! It is simply not essential to a proper government-run system.  Besides, haven’t the PRIVATE healthcare insurance companies really had quite enough time and opportunity to provide a DECENT system instead of the ludicrous, insurance-centric “pig-sty” we now have?

The chances of such a program getting through the current Congress are almost non-existent!  President Obama squandered the most likely opportunity for proper action when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.  Those days are gone, now, and the Republicans may well take control of the Senate after the 2012 elections!  Obama has only himself and Harry Reid to blame.

The insurance companies had their opportunity to "fix the problem" after the failure of Hillary Clinton's questionable health-insurance proposals in the mid-1990's. The companies did nothing, however. They squandered their "right" to be the prime beneficiaries of a national program as they now are under "Obamacare."  Bill Daley (son of the Chicago mayor and later Commerce Secretary) attended a healthcare conference in DC back then.  Daley's job was to sell the "Hillary" plan to Congress.  I stood up and told Daley that all the government had to do (at the time) was to guarantee (1) insurability, (2) portability, and (3) non-discrimination, but Hillary, her cohort Ira Magaziner and Daley had made it needlessly complex, with all sorts of predatory employer mandates, and it predictably failed.  The fault for that avoidable outcome may be laid at their feet!  They were all very arrogant and patronizing and would not heed anyone's varying opinion.  Those attitudes alone may have done more damage in Congress than anything else!

If a good and proper program were adopted, it would prioritize prenatal and pediatric care and limit certain kinds of truly non-emergency treatments for those over 80. It would stress elder COMFORT over most anything else, INCLUDING the use of narcotic drugs if necessary, and it should legalize voluntary euthanizing. It should liberalize and promote out-patient treatment processes, and the authority for narcotic-drug regulation should be taken away from the DEA and its very existence should be revoked!  The DEA is a most unnecessary bureaucracy.  All drug regulation should be turned over to the FDA instead.

In fact, "victory" should be declared forthwith in the absurd "War On Drugs," and ALL federal drug prohibitions should be immediately repealed.  ALL those financial resources should be redirected elsewhere, such as for drug-addiction therapies!  Such a shift could substantially relieve the cost of "Medicare For All."  All non-violent and petty drug offenders in the federal prison system should be immediately pardoned and set free (thereby reducing the absurd costs of operating the federal prison system)!  Drug use/addiction are legitimately HEALTH issues, not law-enforcement issues!

Other countries have figured out how to allow doctors to earn comfortable livings and work enthusiastically in their chosen professions.  Why would that be a problem here?  Of course, the likelihood of major six-figure windfalls for specialists might be tempered, but why should they be legally protected?   Doctors might actually wind up working more predictable hours with less stress and anxiety!   The benefits-filing process could be streamlined and simplified, thereby relieving healthcare providers of needless paperwork.

Patent protections for meds and other devices should be extended to run from date of approval rather than from date of application.  And, the antitrust laws should be amended to allow the formation of voluntary co-ops for purchase of meds and devices in bulk and from any sources, domestic or foreign, so long as the meds or devices are FDA-approved.  FDA funding should be expanded to streamline the approval process, which I would open to all comers.

Unfortunately, and as previously stated, the chances of such changes being approved in the current Congress are almost nil, but that is what President Obama and Senator Harry Reid should have done in the first place.  "Obamacare" is a hopeless mess.