FREE MARKET
Samuel Johnson I: In 1749, Samuel Johnson, a historically well-known personage for many reasons, including his pessimism, wrote a qualified rebuttal imitation of an already fairly famous satiric poem written by Juvenal. The poetic offering of both has come to be known as “The Vanity of Human Wishes.” I will take the liberty of quoting a number of lines, from Johnson’s more popular sequel, in order to draw us into this installment’s sub-subtopic of the free market; whether I will ever be able to logically connect this subtopic to the subtopic of taxation, the broad heading of which is supposed to be my exclusive domain given the third aspect of the title above, remains to be seen. This is politics . . . logic has nothing to do with it. Johnson writes:
“But scarce observ’d the knowing and the Bold,
Fall in the gen’ral Massacre of Gold;
Wide-wasting Pest! that rages unconfin’d,
And crouds with Crimes the Record of Mankind,
For Gold his Sword the Hireling Ruffian draws,
For Gold the hireling Judge distorts the Laws;
Wealth heap’d on Wealth, nor Truth nor Safety buys,
The Dangers gather as the Treasures rise.” (lines 21-28)
Samuel Johnson II: Johnson’s updated version of Juvenal’s original appears to follow the latter’s mocking of the tragic and comic aspects of certain members of the human race, given their ego-centrism (a twentieth century word for a first century [Juvenal] or eighteenth century [Johnson] stock term [i.e. vanity]). The twenty-first century politician is both a comic figure, consider the roasting they endure on late night comedy programs, and a tragic one, as their failures continue to underscore, and cause, ours- a fate we deserve for having elected them (see the quoted lines wich immediately follow this paragraph- which can later be tied into the subtopic of taxation as it pertains to Minnesota's governor's abandoned responsibility to the middle class taxpayer). Johnson’s poem is, most simplistically, a lesson plan of how not to conduct business in this life and if you, as a politician, do not adopt a vast array of attitudes probable infamy awaits- despite having delivered on a pledge to avoid raising taxes (see MN governor Pawlenty below). Johnson writes the names of those who have served, infamously in Johnson's mind, in the British government who have failed and in what ways. Ultimately, what drives the political establishment may be the same thing which drives the financial geniuses- greed; there is little difference between the drive for power and wealth; they are often two sides to the same coin. After all, people run the markets, fail to pass regulations (or even consider them), fix interest rates, trade hedge funds, decide upon potential punishments for transgressions, etc. It is greed that has seemed to prohibit any money saving measure for people who have put trust in a market that is anything but free, as we’ve found. For, the free market has cost many half, or more, of their retirement savings; and those politicians, as I wrote last time, are wandering dangerously free with no way to keep the taxpayer safe from them. (Note, I am aware that those same practices had initially made prospective investors and retirees thier retirment nest-eggs to begin with; and that is the point, without regulations, wouldn’t the same cycle simply repeat itself? The financial capitalists would get to keep the money they never really earned for the investor to begin with?)
"Through Freedom's Sons no more Remostrance rings,
Degrading Nobles an countrouling Kings;
Our supple Tribes repress their Patriot Throats,
And ask no Questions but the Price of Votes;" (lines 93-96)
I'll say that the "price" of votes is nowhere near the cost of them.
Will on greed: George Will wrote a fantastic column for the Washington Post (“In Markets, No Greed Goes Unpunished”); and when hasn’t he written a fantastic column? Will's column, which appeared in the May 17, 2009 Opinion Exchange section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (OP3) was quite remarkable indeed, and I am not being a bit facetious. Even after I had finished reading his commentary justifying the lawlessness of the free market, maintaining that the greedy may be punished for their over-indulgence in the apparently synonymous realms of the economic free market and ticket scalping, and requesting that “Perhaps it would be restful to give moral reasoning a rest and give economic reasoning a chance,” I still had an empty feeling in my brain- like how confounding, and wistful- completely metaphorically, I find the idea of an almost three year old daughter's hobby of hoping to catch a bird with her bare hands. Somehow, Will's logic didn’t fit. Will spent 726 excellent, almost transformative, words comparing the rules, or lack of them, in the ticket scalping game, with the lack of regulations in the free market. Will’s point is that the greed of charging too much for tickets is its own most effective deterrent and will most naturally punish those who do not know the market. Here is a rebuttal, which shoots his argument all to hell in less than 66 words- when the unregulated ticket-scalping business sets the market for a pair of moderately anticipated Red Sox v. Devil Rays tickets out of my price range . . . I don’t go to the game; when the free-market intelligentsia, dabble in junk bonds, and are allowed, by the federal government,* to mismanage the trading of mortgage-backed securities so that I lose half of my 401k . . . I don’t retire. Ah, the drama of the ellipsis. Try again George. (Special note and many points to Mr. Will for subtlety. The play on words with the title of his column and the cliché sound-alike- “no good deed goes unpunished.” Very impressive. Greed often does go unpunished- didn’t I read something about $700 billion going to the financial industry for a bailout because of a lack of regulations? I thought so.)
Johnson III: Johnson penned his remarks with Britain’s parliament in mind, but are these remarks, to the extent that they are decipherable by the 21st century American mind, so far off the mark these days? Doesn’t the unregulated greed market play quite an integral role? In a perfect world morality would not need to play a role in the economy, but we’ve tried it the pathetically bombastic, typical conservative’s way already. I've read my Friedman and my Adam Smith and they didn't get everything right. These lines I find somewhat appropriate:
“Where Wealth unlov’d without a Mourner dy’d;
And scare a Sycophant was fed by Pride;
Where ne’er was known the Form of mock Debate,
Or seen a new-made Mayor’s unwieldy State;
Where change of Fav'rites made no Change of Laws, (electing members of other parties)
And Senates heard before they judg'd a Cause;
How wouldst thou shake at Britain's modish Tribe,
Dart the quick Taunt, and edge the piercing Gibe?
Attentive Truth and Nature to descry,
And pierce each Scene with Philosophic Eye.
To thee were solemn Toys or empty Shew,
The Robes of Pleasure and the Veils of Woe:
All aid the Farce, and all thy Mirth maintain,
Whose Joys are causeless, or whose Griefs are vain.” (lines 55-68)
To me the last line means that we have no one to thank for our joy or grief; I don’t find this so universally true among people and consider that we can be the cause of our own joy, and just as easily find that grief is anything but vain, especially when it is not of our causing. Considering the sheer volume of supporting arguments I have cited since I began this expansive middle class topic, anyone would have an impossible time convincing me that the economic condition of the middle class is a self-inflicted wound.
Better sports metaphors: I am surprised at Will’s misuse of a sports metaphor to justify why there should be no regulation on the devices used by those in the free and financial markets to make money and why there should not be a maximum amount of money overly greedy free market cost setters (CEOs, marketing departments, business analysits, stock traders, hedge-fund managers) can make under any circumstances using any and all means necessary. Here are some more applicable analogies: the NHL uses the instant replay to ensure that the attacking player has not violated any of the rather refined crease rules- goals may be disallowed if a violation is found; instant replay is used in hockey if there is a question whether the puck crossed the goal line at all or whether an offensive player used a kicking motion to direct the puck into the net using their skate. These video protections are in place to prohibit one team from using inadequate means in order to score goals. In football, the use of instant replay is at the head coach’s discretion. He is allowed two challenges a game and acquires another one should his first two challenges go in his favor. This “challenge” protection, keeps officials, who are only human, much like those that run our financial markets and free markets, from making a mistake, some of which are unavoidable. Protecting the American public from a financial market worker’s decision, who is fully capable of making an unavoidable mistake, or even an avoidable one, should be a challengeable check put in place. Likewise, just this season, a sport I believe is Will’s favorite and about which he knows an exhaustive number of facts, has, probably despite his wishes, instituted an instant replay rule which allows umpires to consult the replay in order to determine if a player has hit a home run. This protects the team in the field from the human errors made by umpires attempting to distinguish dingers from doubles or foul balls from fair. Often, a purist will indicate that they would even have their sport monitored by trained officials rather than a more reliable backup plan such as replay. I would rather have the legitimate winner and champion crowned. These players spend eight months playing games in some cases and can spend another couple months training for the seasons. I would not want anything but skill, dedication, desire or luck to determine the outcome; thousands and millions of dollars can be lost, careers can end, jobs can be lost if the correct call is not made.** For those who would claim that the inaccurate calls all even out in sports- unfortunately, this is not the case in the free market or the financial market. If this were so, you would lose a job only to quickly regain one, you could be foreclosed upon in one neighborhood, only to find a home with as much square footage a week later, the vastly overpriced laminate flooring you bought would be equaled by a $2,000 off coupon on the carpeting you’ve been looking at. If there is a zebra mussel with rickets that likes to travel on the bottom of a boat pulled out of Mille Lacs and the owner never cleans his vessel, that acquatic bivalve mollusk is going to infect other lakes; it is time to impose harsh penalties on those with a wilful disregard for morality and the only way to do that is to invest in a solution comprised of well-considered regulations.
Regulations I: Further, every sport I know uses videotape to determine fines and punishments if players leave the bench or throw a punch in basketball or if a player led with their helmet to tackle another player in football, etc. While videotaping all of the decisions made by those in the financial market or those conducting business in the free market would be impossible, imposing rules beforehand with suitable punishments is completely necessary and possible. There are protections and protocol in place in just about any walk of life I can think of with the exception of contractors, the slugs of the working world. We call the protocol at my place of employment- best practices- proven methods for arriving at the more prudent result. Parents use some guidelines, it can be hoped, to raise and discipline children; there are traffic laws, tax laws, military tribunals, international agreements on protocol for handling detainees and interrogations, sans the water boarding of grasshoppers; contractors must build something to code while failing to call you back on a bid for weeks; a visit to the doctor’s office brings the same type of questions about health history and current illness because it is a method that is meant to aid in a diagnosis in addition to its being redundantly annoying; there is even something called etiquette that old ladies value when setting the table and teaching young people how to be polite. And, as Mr. Will well knows, there are even unwritten baseball rules (your pitcher threw at my hitter kind of thing); hell, you could even have unwritten rules in the free market, just impose some penalties if they are violated, just as baseball does when it throws pitchers and managers out of the game for throwing at batters after both teams have been warned. There were probably more rules surrounding the Michael Vick-backed dog fighting ring, or who is the rightful owner of a cat found inside a used couch than there are in the free market. Why should we be without rules where our economic lives are at stake? (For the cat in the couch story see- “Sofa Surprise: Cat Found Inside $27 Used Couch” Associated Press, March 13, 2009).
Disclaimer: As always, if it is determined that the government has not wasted billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer money, the harshness of my critique on the richest 1-5% goes down considerably. As I have written many times, it is not my argument to redistribute wealth without reason. Unfortunately, allowing a free market to act like a spoiled child who won’t stop whining until you buy all the toys in the store for him has no interest for me. There is a limit- if a factory worker is making $10 an hour and a CEO about to be fired for costing the company that factory worker is employed by tens of millions is handed a $25 million golden parachute, no amount of government waste money identified, and recovered by the taxpayer, will convince me that no regulations on the free market is a good thing. Only people raised by wolves- (i.e. republicans) would think that.
Mill’s v. Will’s: If Will’s only contention is that there should be no maximum threshold of money obtained by those in the free market, because their overt greed is certain to punish them, let us just have a failsafe, a set of guidelines ensuring punishment will follow when greed rewarded, while others suffer, gets out of line. Under no circumstances should the Gordon Gekkos of the world make all of the wrong decisions for 90% of the world’s population and thrive. I would add these stipulations as a way of not merely complaining without offering some sensible ideas, which is a complaint that conservatives and liberals who aren't paying enough attention keep trying to make- 1) that American workers are not laid off in lieu of foreign workers, 2) ineffective CEOs are not paid wages 70 times greater than an average employee, 3) and that higher taxes for the middle class, the current or subsequent generations, is not the product of a lack of government oversight on the free market. If these continue to be problems the middle class has with business and taxes are raised 2% on the middle class then they ought to be raised 4% on the richest 1-5% in the country (only should the qualified statement in the disclaimer paragraph above- that the government is found not to be wasting money) is found to be inaccurate- in which case the middle class is also not on the hook for the 2% hike. There are some protections homeowners can take to defend against the dreaded Emerald Ash-borer from destroying their ash, but cannot rely on any form of morality from the government, to which they pay 25-35% of their salary in order to protect their ass from wall street or the free market. Mr. Will should be mindful of the damage done by the banks and mortgage industry, who underwrote tens of thousands of mortgages, and were allowed to by the government, to the detriment of homeowners who had their homes foreclosed on. The old argument which is immediately used to counter this complaint (about those who had their homes foreclosed on) is to blame the homeowners who accepted the sub-prime mortgage. I accepted a sub-prime/flexible arm mortgage rate and re-financed at the earliest allowable time and found a very fortunate fixed interest rate. Not everyone irresponsibly took that arm rate. So, between capitalism's invisible arm (introduced as a metaphor by Adam Smith) and the flexible arm interest rate is the middle class confined in their economic situation by both. On the one side the middle class is unable to profit by the one as much as the rich (capitalism) and not allowed to advance into a home the free market (in terms of home prices) has overvalued, without some assistance. Rich and poor of the country- you would have us not complain?
Good and bad: Helping a gazelle with a speech impediment deconstruct a Samuel Johnson poem during rutting season while aiding them in taking off their wet clothes when YOU don’t have any arms is easier than arguing with a pro financial industry and free market hawk. You cannot help them as they stretch and flail foolishly about without knowing how ridiculous they sound- and I'm referring to the free market hawk. Ultimately, questions of whether to do something or not do it comes down to whether it is good or bad and whose limited view we are to believe is the most pertinent and good. John Stuart Mill, in Utilitariansm, wrote- “Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof.” Mill also quotes from Immanuel Kant’s Ethics and then criticizes it- “So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings.” If everyone- EVERYONE were the owner of a store and drove up the cost of a good or service, no one would be able to purcase anything. Maybe I’ll get around to reading Kant’s Ethics one of these days, but Mill writes of that universal law- “All [Kant] shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption [of any rule] would be such as no one would choose to incur.” I’ll take Mill’s word for it. In a world like ours, dominated by binary opposites, (up and down, heaven and hell, past and present, you show me what is wrong, and I will figure out what is right all by myself).
From a Barnes and Noble review: “On April 9, 1944, George Orwell, wrote a review of [Friedrich] Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’ along with ‘The Mirror of the Past’ by K. Zilliacus. It was published in the London ‘Observer,’ and was called ‘Grounds for Dismay.’ Orwell believed that both men had written excellent arguments for opposite if not diametrically opposed political and economic theories . . . Orwell stated, ‘Taken Together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism [Hayek’s], the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western Civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right. . . . Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.” And what we may actually have in the United States is an unfortunate combination of both approaches which disgusts the poor about the excesses of the idle class, (the rich), and which annoys the rich concerning the degradation of the poor, some of whom are abusing the welfare system, and among whom there are even more who are idle. What we have not tried is an alternative directed by the more reasonable, and more numerous, members of the middle class who are equally disgruntled with them both and the government which protects and provides for them.
CONSTITUTION
Taxonomy: In April of 2009, after having received an email from Common Cause concerning the inherent problems with campaign finance contributions, I wrote an email to congressman John Kline (R- MN). His response and my critique, and then the email I sent in reply follow:
Kline wrote that he opposed: “creating a system that requires campaigns to be fully funded by taxpayer money.”
My comment: I was not aware that the bill required that all money, for the financing of political campaigns, be provided by taxpayers. Knowing that now, I must concede that I would rather try a couple of election cycles this way in order to avoid what little return the average voter receives after an election in which 90% of the funding of candidates is done by people with little concern for the common good, with little regard for the nation’s current predicament, or for the nation’s prospects.
Kline wrote: “In our free democratic process, the right of citizens to contribute to political campaigns based on their individual candidate preference is protected by the Bill of Rights.”
My comment: We have an oligarchy running this country that only in its infancy came anywhere close to being free, either monetarily, or from an individual rights standpoint.
Kline wrote: “Financially supporting a campaign is an expression of the fundamental freedoms of speech and association . . [he has] long supported greater transparency and disclosure in government.”
My comment: It is not an expression of the freedom of speech to be allowed to contribute mass quantities of cash to the shark-like Space Invader of our choice (see part 48). We are allowed to say, and write, almost anything, as long as we are willing to be considered a xenophobe, a socialist, a traitor, a windbag, or a reactionary. Kline is a conservative and will only stand on the side of pro transparency and accountability, until it appears as if the thread holding his political career together is tugged on by his constituency. I would rather suffer from Pica and consume pen caps, plastic foliage and the covers of the Encyclopedia Britannica than buy into the idea that a mass of politicians are into more transparency and disclosure, unless they are referring to how much they enjoyed the Lost season finale.
My emailed response to representative Kline: I appreciate your response to my email expressing my concerns about HR 1826. You [Kline] wrote- "I oppose creating a system that requires campaigns to be fully funded by taxpayer money. In our free democratic process, the right of citizens to contribute to political campaigns based on their individual candidate preference is protected by the Bill of Rights."
Unfortunately, that is exactly the problem. The Constitution is an ambiguously worded document in dire need of updating. It is, in many cases, the biggest problem with this country and is revered by people who overly respect its contents. However, the biggest problem with the document is not its contents, but what Madison, and others, failed to enumerate. I am certain that Madison and the framers of the Constitution did not mean to grant freedom of speech rights to campaign donors interested in buying any candidate for political office the position they seek.
This approach truly circumvents the citizen's collective right to determine the better candidate for each position, if such a one exists, irrespective of how many repetitive, misleading, blatantly false, depressing and ineffectual advertisements are unleashed upon a populace that sees its rights, those that ardent Constitutionalists claim to protect, largely abolished by the almighty worship of campaign donations which surely make the candidates more beholden to the contributors than to the people they have a greater obligation to serve. This, the people's right to hold politicians accountable, supersedes any right that Madison never, even unintentionally, granted in the bill of rights, a portion of the document he did not want included. (Note: I got that part wrong- Madison proposed the inclusion of the bill of rights; it was Hamilton who did not want them included, giving a reasonable explanation why, which I addressed in part 44).
Surely you would think I am unAmerican in writing, in the manner above, about such a hallowed American document. There is a place for the Constitution which aids so many in dictating their path in the legal halls, the city streets and the fields of the nation. If they all knew better, they would come to find how great a disservice continuing to leave it unaltered is to our common goal of political accountability, freedom from oligarchy, and freedom proper- the last of which is why the Constitution was written in the first place, and not to protect a billionaire’s right to make sure his interests are protected which puts other's more natural rights in jeopardy. [end of response]
A tulip’s persistence and the Constitution: Last fall I made a diligent effort to rid our flower garden of the tulips that were buried a foot underground about six years ago. Tulips are perhaps the surest sign of spring, come in the most vibrant colors imaginable and are as resilient as a reformed double-dipper who falls off the wagon, and reclines into justifying the double dip, each time celery is served with blue cheese dressing. Have you ever tried to eat an entire regulation-sized celery stick with just one spot of dip? The rabbits that rule our yard in the early evenings consume a tulip’s ransom of hearty leaves and make them look like they lost some kind of flower fire-fight with the Irises. This spring, despite my best efforts, I discovered that I did not unearth all of the bulbs that were to be had and had to dig up a number of them that had escaped my shovel last fall. Mindful of the shark and its ability of creating a life without having been inseminated, I vaguely remember my wife telling me that tulips have the capacity to shoot a fledgling bulb out some distance from a host bulb as a way of procreating. I will be surprised if the tulip bulbs, whose leaves serve the same purpose as a flag showing the enemy where their adversary is stationed, are the last I dig up in that location. The argument of how unconstitutional is one thing or another seems at least as frustrating to deal with as tulip bulbs. If allowing three-hundred million people the right to contribute massive amounts of money to the candidate of their choice, a mouthpiece for an agenda and a set of ideals that maybe only satan should be proud of, is protected under the bill of rights, perhaps in some enlightenment-era invisible ink at that, then protecting American jobs from being moved overseas should also be, or have we learned that only those who are the rightful interpreters of the Constitution get to separate the just from the damned? The overly sentimental Frodo was not even so favored as the rightful heir to the ring.
Space invaders: Last column I wrote about how the democratic and republican candidates were indistinguishable from each other. I did not mean to say that a good number of democrats and republicans feel the same way about the issues, because we find their differences in their votes and their public comments about the ways and means of their rivals. My point is that they are not all that different in terms of their ability to assist the middle class in its economic fight. The media on both sides think they are Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai disseminating the rules of god to an eager, but misguided set of people psychologically desperate enough to be led. I have watched CNN enough to know that they are liberal and watched Fox News enough to know that they are conservative- plenty of difference there. The reporters on each station, as well as many others, do a disservice to the average taxpayer by not being objective when delivering election results or reporting on issues in the news. Campbell Brown, on CNN, said after accusations of bias in the network’s coverage of the presidential campaign surfaced- “When Candidate A says it’s raining and Candidate B says it sunny, a journalist should be able to look outside.” But in what must be an obvious conscious shielding of Americans from the objective truth, the journalist should not be allowed to draw the shade down if their beloved candidate is lying. (Source of the quote- Time magazine, November 10, 2008, pg. ??, some magazines go 20 pages without page numbers.) Determining how big a role, and how much of a problem the media is in being biased for one side or the other is slightly easier than milking a male walleye for eggs or detecting a weak urine stream over the phone. Isn’t it unconstitutional to mislead the public with a determined lack of reliable oversight? Mrs. Brown, you can’t maintain your objectivity if a caterpillar wrapped in its cocoon about to suffer from hypertrichosis as a butterfly, can recognize your complete lack of journalistic integrity. (Note: Hypertrichosis is better known as Werewolf Disease- middle aged men who have an unflattering number of hairs growing from their ears or scapula are not legitimate sufferers of this disease- just a hunch, confirmed by the lack of shock expressed by the doctor at my last physical examination.)
Hosed: In part 44 I wrote about an inflatable rat’s free speech rights, but how about a vacuum’s? A “29-year-old man pled no contest to indecent exposure after car wash incident.” It seems that the man was “caught performing a sex act with a car wash vacuum [and was] sentenced to 90 days in prison.” I could use words such as "sucked," "violated" and "hosed" to refer to the various players of my long running middle class drama (taxpayer, government, politician, free market devotee, financial industry maven). I'll stop there for now, figuring that you can see to which player I would most applicably assign the various past tense verbs. At any rate- see “Man Caught in Vacuum Sex Act Gets 90 Days” Associated Press, March 26, 2009. Just having a little fun and reintroducing the re-unretirement of the Brett Favre-like topic of taxation- in that, it just never really goes away.
TAXES
Land of 10,000 taxes: Minnesota, the state I reside in, has had a strange relationship with taxes for the last 6 years in particular. Current governor Tim Pawlenty made a promise while campaigning or upon assuming office (I forget which) over six years ago that he would not raise taxes, or has made a pledge of “no new taxes” (I forget which). Considering how consistent Pawlenty has been over his 6+ years in office, you would think a guy like me that trots out pig odor studies and quotes poems that are over 250 years old would be able to retain those pieces of information. Minnesotans have had a hard time of it lately, and I’ve only managed to assign a palpable feeling of anxiety about the governor’s promises where residents of Minnesota are concerned- we’re wondering why he isn’t raising taxes. We have not fully appreciated his integrity, because we are concerned about what not raising taxes . . . on ANYTHING might do to the state’s health care system, schools, (the cost of college tuition among them), public services, transportation department, etc. Nobody really delivers on their promises anyway right? But, besides having raised some fees, a subtle semantic difference, he has not raised taxes, and perhaps to the detriment of the state’s budget now and in the future. When six republicans assisted in overriding a Pawlenty veto of a gas tax increase in the fall of 2008, it actually made sense. My justification for agreeing with those in favor of the gas tax- we use the roads, I own a vehicle, it has been proven that roads in disrepair cause damage to vehicles, slow commute times, and affect a vehicle’s performance, can cause accidents, and in my mind, can signal the urban, suburban and rural plight that causes a subconscious lack of respect in the minds of a community’s inhabitants, which perpetuates the plight. All good reasons to side with the six republicans who were instrumental in getting the gas tax increase past a Pawlenty veto. Humor me- those with short attention spans can go back to thinking about the exciting prospect of Brett Favre’s possible re-unretirement. Consider- a man inclined toward depression, can see the disrepair of a series of roads he travels each day, consider that the government does not care about his city and blame the government for not repairing those roads, all while he (the depressed man) was against tax increases that would have gone to fund the repairs those roads need. Hardly a fair knock against the government- especially considering all the legitimately blameworthy government actions and inactions there are to complain about.
Fast forward: The democrats in the Minnesota chambers of government passed a tax increase bill that Pawlenty vows to line-item veto, and this time does not have the numbers to veto proof the provisions Pawlenty is most against, those that raise taxes. Thing is, again I side with the democrats, the party most responsible for insisting on raising taxes. Unfortunately, for those that are still celebrating Kris Allen’s upset of screaming Adam Lambert on American Idol, it is a bit more complicated than that. I’ll wake you up when I’m finished. The tax increase would have raised $1 billion in revenue (for a reported $4.6 billion shortfall), which the state of Minnesota clearly needs if just for school and health care reasons alone. Two of the sources for the increase would have come from a tax on alcohol sales and a surcharge on credit card companies (I’m with you so far). The third source- an increase in taxes on income of those couples who earn more than $250k- you MAY have just lost me, because of that whole government waste notion I have- again, see part 9. This proposed income tax would have hit non-small business owners who bring in over $250,000 a year- the ideal segment of the population for a tax increase, as they would not have to lay people off in order to afford that tax increase.**** What would the revenue derived from those areas being taxed be used for?- hospitals, schools and nursing homes- pretty important things. Still, while valuing Pawlenty’s pledge of no new taxes, (perhaps he just hopes the democrats will read between the lines and simply supply him with a bill which will just raise existing taxes) you cannot admire the policy of a man who obviously is protecting the lobbies of some very powerful groups- such as credit card companies and rich people who probably gave him a lot of money for his campaigns- (have I referred to the problem of campaign finance reform- parts 19-21 enough?), while basically guaranteeing that hundreds (or thousands?) of teachers will no longer have jobs, or that roads in January after seven inches of snow has fallen over night will remain unplowed until 10 am the next morning. It seems that enough Minnesotans thank Pawlenty for his level of stubbornness while questioning his ability to see how continually not raising taxes of any kind will hurt Minnesota in the future, when it will be another governor’s obligation to raise taxes, which the future governor will be derided for, no matter how much he blames that necessity on Pawlenty.
Everyone is a critic: And most people have an idea on what to do and not do where proposed tax increases are concerned. Again, if it is confirmed that the government is wasting no money already being sent their way, only then would I propose any of the tax increase measures that have been proposed, even those that have not been written down or spoken of out loud. Some proposed tax increase ideas which are better than raising income taxes, anyone's income taxes: pop, high-priced clothes, (because they are luxury items) four year olds for calling people names that include the deroguatory term- “poophead” or for asking too many questions in one day about the original Star Wars trilogy, those who plan to use Ovocontrol for use in controlling the St. Paul pigeon population;***** infrequently used sewing machines or spatulas, jewelry; the purchase of hard cover books (this could be called the patience tax because soft covers come out in due time); anyone asking for a federal bailout- including the porn industry and the record industry;****** a syn tax, not to be confused with the sin tax- mostly this version of the syntax would be paid by 900 year old, diminutive and green Jedi Knights named Yoda who use words out of order when they speak. Since Yoda is dead . . . and fictional, we’ll get about as much money out of this newly proposed tax, certainly to be vetoed by Tim Pawlenty, as your average capital gains tax, especially now that the economic stimulus bill has been made law. Combining the syn-tax and the vacuum cleaner story could yield a comment like this from the spirit world Yoda- "Hosed the taxpayer is."
________________________________________
* This means regulating what ought to be unlawful activities- which activities would those be? Let us start a list so that we do not need to rely on the “I’ll know it when I see it” approach which was mocked by Will in his article.
** Consider a manager that just a year previous won the world series because a call was correctly overturned by replay that the umpires had called incorrectly initially. This manager has a terrible record through the first third of the next but cannot be fired because he just guided that franchise to the title. His job is safe for a time, and his recent past achievement proves he is qualified to be given more of an opportunity to turn things around. He loses that series, with no help from the call the umpires got wrong and he is looking for work- with the reason why he lost the series, the blown call, nothing more than an asterisk, when it could have been the only reason why the series was lost.
*** I read a Readers Write letter in the Star Tribune’s Opinion Exchange section (March 13, 2009, pg. A12) a couple months ago. A woman, who had lost her marketing job, [December 2008] and her husband are trying to afford their mortgage and tuition payments for their two children. The couple’s mortgage is with a bank included in the federal bailout. She writes: “I have had countless conversations with bank officials, but have been told that since we are still ‘current’ on our mortgage we do not qualify for any assistance. I was also advised that until we become at least three months delinquent we will not qualify for our laon to be reviewed, and even then they would not guarantee that they would be able to help us. Through my job searches, I know that employers now make a habit of checking a prospective employee’s credit rating; not paying our mortgage will thus affect my ability to become employed.” Hm, can we help this woman out by reviewing her situation, by imposing penalties on the bank, or ask why employers would be allowed to check a prospective employer’s credit history unless they are going to empty the ATM machines?
**** Also in the Star Tribune article “Tax Veto Sets Stage for Week of Haggling” Mike Kaszuba, May 10, 2009, A1 & A14, is this information- an Anoka representative “who was one of six Republicans who voted to override Pawlenty on the transportation proposal last year, said he would not do so on the current proposal, but left the door open on other possibilities. Before Friday’s House vote, Abeler said he was uncertain enough that he took the political pulse of a few key Anoka residents to gauge support for the DFL bill.” Who said- “We will not be contributing to your reelection campaign if you vote yes on raising our taxes!” That is probably the reality, but what Abeler admitted: “I found [no support] on a fourth tier,’ Abeler said, referring to higher taxes on the wealthy.” If you are not rich and live in Anoka, how are you going to vote for this guy next election?
Anyone not see the interconnectedness of all the topics I’ve been writing about since the spring of 2007? Taxation, education, health care, campaign finance, inadequate representation, voting proclivities. A topic like taxation, and one like immigration can be immediately and inherently connected to campaign finance, but can also quite easily be connected with many others. This is like the interconnectedness of all the characters on Lost; and when referring to the future prospects of the middle class- I wouldn’t even have to change the name of the show.
***** “The city [St. Paul] is working up a plan that will involve feeding local flocks OvoControl, a feed laced with birth control that prevents pigeon eggs from being fertilized.” See- “If Pigeon Poop Caused Part of a St. Paul Parking Ramp to Fall, Population-Control Plan Could Benefit” http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_12356314. It seems a chunk of a parking ramp façade fell off and landed on the street.
****** From a February 4, 2009 article “NAB URGES CONGRESS TO OPPOSE RECORD LABEL BAILOUT”: “NAB President and CEO David Rehr urged lawmakers to oppose legislation introduced today that would force America's hometown radio stations to pay a new "performance fee" to the recording industry for music aired free on the radio. The legislation, introduced in the House, is supported by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). A measure opposing today's Congressional action is expected to be introduced shortly.” Seems to me that the record labels, since playing music on the radio began, have benefited from having radio stations play their music and now they want to charge stations for the honor of playing their music. I bought a Wang Chung tape in 1984 because Dance Hall Days was such a compelling song and record labels have made billions since radio stations began playing music on the air. This appears to be just another free market ploy, like ticket scalping that we should all respect or be considered moral entrepreneurs by George Will. And here I thought scalping had a negative connotation.
No comments:
Post a Comment