Janus Heels . . .

Echo Morning

2010-03-04T06:25:00.001-06:00

I haven't posted anything in nearly 4 months. I found out in early December that my services would no longer be required at my former employer. Ironically, due to the REALITY of GLOBALIZATION I wrote about in my last two posts but one. Yeah, who could have seen that coming? So, figuring I would be in violation of my severance agreement for comments I had planned to incorporate into my final posting on my middle class bloga (i.e. blog saga), I decided to play it safe and redirect my creative juices, such as they are, into the fictionalized version (a book, with actual characters, a story, etc.) of all the research I'd done over the past four years on the various subtopics. All of the postings, the non-fiction version can still be found along the left side of this site. The book is progressing at a steady pace, and with any luck, given that I have a third child on the way, I'll complete it at some point in 2016. By that time, I expect its release to be more anticipated than the next winter olympics, or not.

I've been too busy with looking for a new job, taking care of the kids, writing my book, going on a vacation, and attending to all of the things life has to throw at you, and have had no time to continue with the bloga, I also haven't had time to consider, or write intelligently or amusingly, about any other topic. With that said, I decided I would post something different. Below is a poem I wrote in October of 2006 in the basement in the early morning. HTML treats the appearance of words arranged in a poem horribly, but I don't know that the average reader would take that into consideration, supposing they consider the words themselves. This poem is one of my less cryptic offerings. The two main versions of the mythological story of Echo are included below and I simply allude to them both as different in terms of origin, repurcussions and connotations with one version something that the mythical Echo would be reverred for and the other a version she might be ashamed of. I used Echo as one part of my term for political pundits who are in love with the sound of their own voice and their opinions, and created the term- Echo Narcissists (and Jack- you will love this one- please see part 16. Actually if you Google- "Echo Narcissism" [remember to include the quotes], you are taken immediately to that post).

Echo Morning

We bow our heads once in reverence
and once more in shame;
no metaphor can honor-placate the mind
for the declines appear the same.

The same sound in the ear, the ear that has a stomach
And must die jest-
just as the eyes must digest
just as the hands must digest, as the mouth must digest,
the ears must digest.

The ears consume the sound of a hollow foot fall
on frosty grasses on a mid October morning, amid the cold-covered dawn-
the blades encased in a veil of frost,
for where is nature
there is god!
and for that
the ears of the world applaud.
We seek a sound that is lost and that is found.

Elsewhere (not meanwhile), a poet, who at least once
has written what he has said-
that memories echo, they echo, they resound in his head
until he can no longer stand-
his imagination- “the mind can grasp more than the hand.”

Soft thing, you whisper and I hear you years later . . . in the morning-
When words are there, and not there,
And are naught but air,
When, if there were angels, they would meet- in the cold stillness,
Where it is too frigid for our hours to leave us.
Anything that moves here is moved by the wind and regret.

You might say this, this is elusive, abstract stuff,
but should know
of the excess of anonymity that is love-
the cigarette satisfaction of one memory after another,
gone in a puff of smoke,
that came without a fire to stoke,
that upon all good ears confer,
some words that yesterday’s prefer.
We know not which hours to keep
And are, someone else before we wake and sleep.

This is evening-morning.
pink clouds in the autumn to east and west, (the evening like the morning)
from a sun that shines too late and sets too soon,
so lost are days . . .
and like begging fury- ears chase the previous tune.

So, mythologically we bow our heads once in reverence for Echo-
grimly torn to pieces, revenged by Pan (via shepherds, whom he drove mad) for being unreceptive to advances; and her voice remains

And we bow our heads in shame for Echo-
because false Zeus was repeatedly warned of Hera’s approach by Echo who was then made to repeat the words of others.

In shame and reverence is the echo, the story.
A faint voice survived,
or the recall of other voices so derived.

Little boys and girls asleep before the dawn
so some can contemplate an echo marathon.
A repeat of a yesterday so gradually gone,
of mimicked scenes, pregnant pauses-
of days as soldiers gaunt and wan.

We imitate the theoretical-inimical,
For it is work to think of criminal royalty, to think of plebian slight,
To change an echo for a fainter echo because our ears are awake at night.
And my former self can write nothing that makes sense
of what has passed heretofore, or what will pass hence.
we know nothing of the color of the rain,
but know the sound of the sane-
which is the pretense for the storm,
a weather entity without a form,
much like an echo- no symbolic, meaty words to give it shape,
just grasping, empty, semi-soundless words
in a mind ill-equipped to make them live-
just lost, disheveled, elusive, somewhat re-cognized rarities,
milk after the cereal is eaten kind of words,
light bulbs after the filament breaks kind of words,
the sky after the sun descends,
the trees after the leaves are gone,
the pockets after the bet is played,
the sleep after the bed is made,
the sound after the chord is struck,
the wine bottle after the guests have left,
the idea of the old song after the new one begins,
a mountain lost in the waves,
the mirror after the ghost passes,
the ear after the laugh fades- kind of words.

We were, we are
comprised of an entourage of hours,
and as we never are who we are going to be
we are not still who we were- and some of us hate ourselves for that.

The echo is the promise of a bubble’s life,
Whose end comes by cold departure,
not by the blade of a knife.
It is a sound that fades in the morning,
Our ears straining to hear,
its’ presence is no symptom, its’ absence is no cure.

Just as the prince is guilty of the cobbler’s crimes,
We enliven mornings- we are echo paradigms.

All Hail, the Fruits of Winter

2009-12-07T11:09:00.008-06:00

I figured I would take at least one more break from the grind of contributing 11 pages to the wasteland of my bloga and offer a timely homage to winter.

Most people don't accomplish much during winter and many people in the colder regions prefer spring and summer to winter. I am no exception. I don't ski, snowboard, ice skate or snowmobile. If I didn't have two kids, I wouldn't go outside, even on temperate days, to play in the snow. I do little more during the winter than a bear that hibernates for four months. But, because it is expected to be under 30 degrees for many of the next 90 days, I thought I would think positively for a change. I'm a glass is full kind of guy . . . if the glass is half full of Captain Morgan and Coke. Here are my reasons to like winter:

1) Spend less money @ Home Depot and Gertens. I can always find many reasons to go to Home Depot. In the spring and summer you need fertilizer for the grass, tar patch for the driveway, paint to touch up the deck, rocks for the rock garden, gardening supplies, building supplies for the shed, tree trimming equipment, weed killer, varmint or pest control, or cement block to frame in a planter so your yard has decent curb appeal. At Gertens, someone can spend a fortune on yews, lilacs, arborvitaes, grasses, hostas, or trees of any kind. Then there is root stimulator, rock garden gnomes, bird baths, more fertilizer, especially if your yard is the weed zoo that mine is. It never ends. I would guess that I spend about a third of the money in October through March that I spend in April through September at Home Depot and Gertens. In the winter, about the only Home Depot products I might buy are a snow shovel or christmas lights and I haven't yet needed to replace the shovel I got eight years ago. I am very into having projects to do I almost bought supplies to build a pergola for the grub worms that were living in our back yard- (see #3).

2) Less time spent on yard work. If it snows, you shovel-that's it. It takes me, on average, an hour and fifteen minutes to mow the lawn, walking behind my self-propelled mower. And about once a month I weed whip. That contraption isn't the easiest thing in the world to start and I get grass clipping all over my legs and shoot the occasional small rock or piece of sand at my legs. If the Home Depot sold shin guards or nut cups I would spend more winter money there. In the winter there is no worrying about whether it is going to rain, so you don't have to spend time moving the sprinklers on the south side of the lawn (we have underground sprinklers that take care of most of the lawn). There are no weeds to contend with that come between our patio blocks and none that are nuisances coming through the rock garden landscape fabric that was supposed to curtail weeds for ten years. Each spring, I put down a ring of Triazicide that keeps the ants from invading my house and some years there are other lawn insects to contend with or a mole that tunnels its way underground. This past year, I put a wire fence underneath my deck to keep a rabbit from living there. The rabbit kept growing and had to chew several (and bigger) holes in my lattice so it could get its fat arse through. There is no end to the number of projects a guy like me can dream up- even accidentally.

3) No ants or mosquitoes. During the warmest time of summer, no matter how much you've spent on caulking, and especially if you have young kids that can unwittingly feed several ant colonies by dropping crumbs on the floor, you have that pest to contend with. So there is Terro to purchase, after the caulk you purchased has failed- see #1 above. You want to spend a nice evening on the patio or deck. Well, you better get out there quick, before the mosquitoes arrive. This past summer was very nice, because it didn't rain a lot, so there were fewer bugs overall. But, see #2- time spent and money spent watering the lawn and dragging the hose around, perhaps even buying a new sprinkler head- (see #1).

4) You are expected to overeat. With Halloween, Thanksgiving, christmas proper and any and all holiday events surrounding christmas, there is a ton of food. I always show up at my sister's for Thanksgiving with my big pants on. We used to eat two Thanksgiving meals on turkey day-going to my sister's and the in-laws. This year, we had three. We celebrated double at the in-laws because of some availability issues. Ham, turkey, dressing, yams, potatoes, gravy, rolls, butter, baked corn, pecan pie. I'm not going to list off the number of good things there are to eat around christmas, when you've still got leftover Halloween candy in a bowl on the top of the fridge that you've confiscated from the kids. I feel like a lord that takes a percentage of chocolate from my little serfs.

5) Basketball and hockey tournaments and the Super Bowl. The biggest event, outside of christmas, is watching the Super Bowl. People nest in their houses, eating pizza, guacamole, chicken wings, and chips and drink beer- (see #4). I love NBA fantasy hoops, even if I've only won one title in 15 years. In March you get the best sports seen in the country- March Madness and the NCAA basketball tournament, which my Tar Heels won last year. This tournament is everything its counterpart in NCAA football is not. Where the former decides the games on the court, after all the complaining about who is in and out of the tournament, and where someone is seeded- the latter has a computer and an algorithm decide the champion. That approach makes less sense than why people still think they need to vote for one of two political parties. A team from a smaller conference that goes undefeated has no chance to win a national championship because the good old boys won't let them play for it. So, I like winter in this area, because I get to stop hearing about college football on ESPN. In Minnesota, there is the high school hockey tournament. I've been watching that since I was 7 years old. Even winter can remind one of their youth.

6) Reading and writing and shopping for christmas, sometimes even for you. With all of the things you don't have to do in #2 above, even with two small kids, there is more time to watch TV, read and write.

7) Sweat and shirts. Now granted, you freeze your behind off in the winter and I would far prefer the summer heat to the winter cold, but in the winter you don't pit out any of your shirts and with that you don't smell as much. I think I sweat an average amount for a guy, but I might be more annoyed by it. Well, you don't have to worry about that when you are so cold that your nuts won't descend for days at a time, unless you sit by a fire. Also, I hate ironing; I'm terrible at it. By the time I iron the second half of a long sleeve shirt, the first half I ironed is wrinkled again. In the summer, you don't have to iron long-sleeve shirts, because you aren't wearing them. Hey, I'm trying to think positively.

Slamming winter interlude: Because I couldn't go all the way without complaining about winter or the events that traditionally take place during winter, I wanted to get those Scrooges out there a mental pacifier. Sure it's cold; you can't be outside; cook food on the grill; the roads are covered in ice; we must endure holiday decorations at retailers from mid August until the third week of January, given all the clearance items they have to sell; there are only reruns on television because everyone knows televisions stop working between Thanksgiving and christmas when it is cold and dark outside and there is often (literally) nothing else to do; you have holiday lights to put up; a dog peed in the snow your daughter just ate (see #8); you can't gun the engine fast enough to get the car up the driveway because of all the snow; you have to wear a jacket that weighs as much as a dog from the toy group; you gain eleven pounds in three months, and you contract seasonal affective disorder once the leaves start falling.

All that said and- can someone please, please tell me why they play all of the holiday shows so early in the season? Someone went to the trouble of making a Madagascar christmas special this year and then someone made the brilliant decision to play it the week BEFORE Thanksgiving! Morons! If you are going to play all of the christmas shows so early because we're all so busy freezing our butts off shopping, play the damn things again, when any self-respecting holiday-loving personage is in the mood to watch them. And don't cite viewership numbers and contend no one watches television between the 10th and 20th of December. You can't tell me those christmas shows- Rudolph, The Grinch, Shrek the Halls, Charlie Brown, Frosty, etc. won't get better numbers than Dinner Impossible on the Food Network or the 15th incarnation of CSI on CBS. Watching these shows reminds me of my youth. What doesn't?

Whew. Lucky I'm half done or this grammar check on Microsoft Word would drive me nuts, changing my lowercase "christmas" to the upper case version.

8) Snow. I have two kids, and provided it isn't 10 below, they like to get at that snow. I think we could feed our kids a couple meals a week by telling them to eat the snow. I have some good memories of playing in the snow when I was a kid and everyone does- king of the hill, fumble football, snowball fights, snow forts, flooding the backyard for a rink, boot hockey in the driveway, where slap-shots weren't allowed, even before I was hit with someone else's backswing and needed a patch over my left eye. Now, even though it takes 12 1/2 minutes to get two kids under the age of five ready to go outside, there is fun to be had. You can build your kids forts and drag them around on the sled, while avoiding a heart attack, and laugh when they do a face plant in the snow, after which their lower lip puffs out so far a buzzard could take refuge upon it.

9) Warm showers. They just feel that much better don't they? Never mind that you freeze your butt off until you're dry and in warm clothes- there is just something about a warm shower in the middle of winter. Ok, yeah, I oversold that one and I'm reaching. But if not for the cold, I would never have learned that my son's favorite water temperature is warm. Good to know.

10) Cold Nipples. Sorry for the touchy-feely winter positive next to this R-rated alternative. It is cold in the winter; I know that doesn't come as any surprise to people. So, for all of the skimpy clothing that can be worn during the summer months, about the best that can be said for winter is that you might have a chance of spotting a substantial protuberance. Thankfully for us males, who may have hot women withdrawals in winter when everyone is putting on layers of clothing, many female areolas are too sensitive to be contained. If it weren't for wool and I were ranking this list, I would have to put this one pretty high up. Honey, when I wrote "us" I meant all men but me of course.

11) Parades. This is a double-edged sword and I advise people to heed my advice. Do not begin watching the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade in the first hour. They've sold this as a parade, with Smurfs, Mickey Mouse and Spider Man balloons and Sesame Street and Dora floats, but most of what you get is a round table discussion where the hosts find themselves amusing, discussing with Michael Mckean what fine work he's doing in his off Broadway play about narcissism, and how great he thinks the writing and the cast (which you've never heard of) are doing. Dude, tell me when you are coming out with something like "Spinal Tap" or "Best in Show" or get out of the way- a Handy Manny balloon is coming down 34th Street- and my kids don't even like Handy Manny. I would rather listen to Boris Yeltsin, who is still alive by the way, tell me about his favorite childhood moments growing up in Siberia in Yiddish, a language I'm pretty confident he doesn't speak. Watching parades does bring me back to my youth- (see #5); it would be something I was doing waiting for the football pregame show to come on. Hey, we didn't have cable, and it isn't my fault they fit some of the worst lip-sync artists in the world in between the Old Mother Hubbard float and Darkwing Duck balloon- a fellow who stole his irritable cartoon duck act from either Daffy or Donald- take your pick. Here's another clue- don't put an advertisement for General Motors, even though they need all the help they can get, over the Disney Princesses float I promised my daughter she'd see fifteen minutes ago. Morons! Ok, that turned a little negative. It snowed last night . . . I'm trying.

12) Hot chocolate. Besides beer, Captain-Coke, Mountain Dew, and UV Blue Vodka and lemonade, my favorite drink is that old water and chocolate powder drink heated for two minutes in the microwave. Sometimes I even have a few stale miniature marshmallows to add. I have the circulation, in my hands and feet, of a giant cuttlefish with type II diabetes (ah, that doesn't actually have hands or feet), so being able to warm my hands against a cup of hot chocolate is good stuff. Never mind that I scald my lips and tongue impatiently testing the temperature of my concoction. It turns out, my favorite hot chocolate temperature- is warm (see #9) and if you are a man- read #10 again just for the hell of it.

13) The second refrigerator or freezer. You don't have to refrigerate pop or have ice cubes to cool a room temperature soda. In the winter, if you want a drink, open up the door to the garage . . . it's cold man. Ok, so when it freezes, you must remember to bring in the garage beverages or you will be left with a frozen pop you have to wait 45 minutes to thaw, but other than that, it's all good. If you're having a party, you can store all of the beverages on the deck- and that leaves more room in the fridge for food (see #4). You don't even need to worry about drunken squirrels stealing your stuff. They don't have the arm strength and I hear the punishment for reckless tree climbing in the squirrel community is crippling to their social life. Also, if you go out to eat and have other errands to run, you can leave the leftovers in the car without worrying about them spoiling. Course, a lot of people decide it is too cold outside to leave the house to go out to eat, but to hell with them anyway.

14) christmas music . . . both the good and the bad. Sure, they start playing this stuff way too early and too often, and some of it, especially if your wife has an I-Pod and knows how to use the favorites play list that isn't populated with nearly enough songs, can drive you insane. But the music (at least some of it) reminds me of my youth. Some of it makes me long for the silence of the isolation room in some fictitious prison, but I digress. Every time I hear Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas Is You" I think of her showing some cleavage on the CD jacket of her holiday album back before she was completely skanky and before she had decided to only hang out with American-African gentlemen. (Note to the guys- seeing the nipple back then was a little much to hope for- read #10 again if you're depressed or if you aren't.) However, there are a few songs I can't stand and they exist only to make others seem more palatable by comparison. The most offensive of these holiday eardrum-numbing songs is Barbara Streisand's version of "Jingle Bells". This is 2 minutes of pure, perhaps LSD-induced torture. But at least it is only 2 minutes. Then, what little is left of my holiday spirit, after discovering a number of gifts I received that I can't and won't use and didn't ask for did not come with receipts and which I can't return, comes back to me. Seriously, if you have never heard this version of the popular song- do it once and compare the effects to this central nervous system disorder: "A common condition arising from compression of, or damage to, a nerve or nerve root. Usually caused by degeneration of an intervertebral disc, which protrudes laterally to compress a lower lumbar or an upper sacral spinal nerve root. The onset may be sudden, brought on by an awkward lifting or twisting movement". People, you either have Sciatica or have just listened to Streisand's version of Jingle Bells too often during one holiday season. Also, "there may be numbness and weakness in the leg." People might think I'm kidding. Give it a listen if you dare. The horror!

15) Holidays. I already mentioned the overeating and the shopping, both of which are fun and dangerous at the same time. But the holidays are actually much more than that, especially if you have kids. I'm going to ignore the fact that some people who shop for gifts go out and buy people what they want them to have, that think that providing a list of gifts one wants is rude and all that stuff I covered in the the second post I wrote way back in 2006- "Ungratefulness and Steak with Ketchup" but forgetting that for a minute- the holidays are all about family and drinking and little kids and drinking and eating and drinking and opening presents and drinking. And let's be honest, sometimes we should drink before we get to the eating or the little kids or the family events. The holidays- especially christmas, are all about kids. Nothing is more rewarding than the innocence and excitement of seeing a child glow more than any string of lights available at the Home Depot, at least until the latter is 70% off. Now, either the children have actually swallowed a string of lights, (I wouldn't put it past my little guy), or the anticipation of Santa and toys and fun and being able to share days and weeks with them at this time, which is something people should never forget, is too overwhelming to keep it inside. Now, it isn't until they're about 8 or 9 when they wonder why their I-Tunes or Best Buy gift card is only for $20 that we realize the loss of child-like innocence- which reminds us of our age and we again lose our childhood again. Until then though appreciate the fruits of winter, drink it up, and this time I'm not just talking about the alcohol.

Middle Class Part 53: The Reality of Globalization Continued

2009-11-14T20:56:00.007-06:00

Remember: Last time I started writing about the combined arrogance of two authors whose contributions to the unresolved globalization conflict should guarantee their book is found in the fantasy fiction section of book stores and libraries; there was so much material germane to the overall topic of middle class concerns, I decided one post wasn’t enough. Again, we should be mindful of this quotation: “It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain. Presumption, in health care parlance, is a pre-existing condition. Those who are in the globalization is good camp, who think that all benefit by some losing their jobs, including those who lose their jobs, probably still think that a stadium built in your county will economically benefit you, who share residency in that county with a professional sports franchise. I have shoelaces that don’t believe that. Sure, it helps bars, hotels and local businesses, but I don’t see the economic benefit to the average worker, unless he is a beer salesman with strong calves, who takes a cut off the top of the Budweiser sales. And I can guarantee I’ll never see a box on my W2s that reads: newStadium existence benefit.

Let’s continue and conclude with the subtopic of globalization.

Chapter 3- Employment Trends for Globalization 3.0-

Employment predictions: (pg. 57) The authors make two forecasts- the first, about the local production and consumption of services such as medical care, education, recreation, legal and social services (though there are some in the list I would argue with, as I already have with housing and as I would with utilities and telecommunications) will be locally produced and consumed. The second prediction is that “the future efficiency of individual national economies will be determined locally, not by global developments.”

My comment: Hogwash. The day of the local economy, at least anything that really matters is of little consequence. The business world is positively giddy with the idea of globalization. It is as if there is some mandate that a department head or CEO, in his communiqués with his or her minions, must include the word global as a noun (globalization) or adjective (global marketplace), talk about diversity, refer to the leveraging of business objectives, asset management, organic revenue growth, integrating technology, and mention a country that borders Bangladesh, yada, yada, yada, or suffer the same fate of those who are caught practicing origami without a license. There isn’t a self-respecting country out there that isn’t global or does not want to be, unless they’re still marrying their siblings, putting whale bones in their nasal passages or praying for saviors in the form of cross-eyed infants or a marsupial indigenous to Tasmania. (Note: here I was thinking specifically of the yapok or water opossum.) The website of one of my favorite corporations recently had a learning opportunity link that read: “Speak Locally, Compete Globally.” Mr. Greenwald, Mr. Kahn- I could rest my case, but I’m having too much fun casting my pole of sarcasm into the cesspool of misinformation you would call a book and pulling back . . . well hideously deformed, half-considered assertions that would be the metaphorical equivalent of a three-eyed carp. Mentioning the word “global” is cool, even in the insect community. I saw a mole cricket stripped of its exoskeleton at the mere mention of the word- “world” in lieu of the more shiek- “global”.

Legions: “To date, there have never been legions of U.S. workers displaced by globalization. Comparing the figures for 2007 with those for 1997, what stands out is how little has changed in the employment/unemployment data, other than the size of the workforce and the total number of jobs.”

My comment: The annual measure of participants in the spiritual endeavor of onanism* are more stringently calculated than Greenwald and Kahn’s blind supposition that we don’t have a problem where globalization is concerned. From senior white house correspondent for ABC news Jake Tapper (via Dan Arnall), “the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the nation’s employers cut 598,000 workers from their payrolls during January, with significant downward revision to previous months. This is the worst month of job loss since December 1974 (-602K).” Since January 2008, “the nation has seen more than 3.2 million jobs vanish into the black hole that is the current recession . . . and marks the thirteenth consecutive month of negative jobs growth.” (“Worst Job Loss Numbers Since 1974” February 6, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/worst-job-loss.html) Is that a legion of jobs? How many of the reported 3.2 million could be pinned on globalization? Is the reality of the recession masking the job losses that could be attributed to the façade, according to Greenwald and Kahn, of globalization? Who would really know for sure?

My comment II: From an AFL-CIO article from some point in early 2004 “Shipping Jobs Overseas: How Real is the Problem”- “Various independent estimates indicate the number of white-collar jobs lost to shipping work overseas over the past few years is in the hundreds of thousands and millions are at risk in the next five to ten years.” And that is long before your sensible employee working for a corporation interested in sending its people to the unemployment lines began using globalization as a pejorative term; five years later, the facts of globalization have become more apparent, not less. If only these guys had written their book in 2004 I could cut them some slack, but I have attempted, and thus far succeeded, in the equivalent of abducting their fiction and leaving it in a wooded area to be found five weeks later by a search team that was looking for an original copy of a D.H. Lawrence novel. (Note: the words “global” or “globalization” do not appear in the article, which again, was written in 2004. The virus of globalization has transformed itself since then and there is no reliable inoculation against it; it is more potent than the Swine flu.)

My comment III: Here are those independent estimators, according to the AFL-CIO: Forrester Research, University of CA at Berkeley, U.S. Department of Labor, INPUT Research, the Economic Policy Institute, Challenger, Gray and Christmas, Gartner Tech, Goldman Sachs, Deloitte Research, and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, I don’t know how qualified or politically slanted each of those separate entities are, but the number of them that are independently refuting what Greenwald and Kahn and hundreds of thousands of others are saying is nothing to dismiss. From the AFL-CIO article referenced above- “Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000-600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . A U.C. Berkeley study found 25,000 to 30,000 new outsourcing-related jobs advertised in India by U.S. firms in just one month in 2003.” I’ve heard that UC Berkley is so liberal Karl Marx would have been thrown out, but globalization isn’t a liberal or a conservative issue per say, but a reality issue.

My comment IV: Seems to me that there have been about as many liberals as conservatives in a position to challenge the corporate world by introducing legislation that would protect the American worker, but their allegiance to upholding the tenets included in the Constitution which preclude this protection appears to be even stronger. If only they would uphold a majority number of the other promises they made prior to their election- that would be impressive (and I don’t mean that they can simply uphold their promise not to taunt autistic drill monkeys in zoos across the country that have refused to contribute money toward their next campaign); and it would also be commendable if those protections against such prospective proposed legislation were actually enumerated within the Constitution. Hell, 30 republicans (the only nay votes) voted against a bill a few weeks ago that would give rape victims the right to sue a gang of co-workers who have forcibly sexually defiled them. What is wrong with these politicians? For perhaps the same reasons they are against regulating anything where private business practices are concerned, they are in the pro rape camp? It seems “her employment contract [with Haliburton/KBR, a government hired contractor] said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.” See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html, “Jon Stewart Takes on 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment.” Stewart says- “the old it’s ok if you get raped clause in government contracts . . . got us again.”** If you don’t get the connection between the government putting the rubber stamp on the off-shoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last decade by corporations and the lack of a commitment to stamp out no bid military contracts, that may or may not include anti-rape clauses, then you are easily distracted by the role of mudskippers in your average seaside jungle habitat.

Sucking assessment I: (pg. 69) “In his campaign for the presidency in 1992, Ross Perot tried to capitalize on an earlier version of globalization phobia by claiming to hear ‘the giant sucking sound of (U.S.) jobs going to Mexico.’ Today, that specific fear seems almost quaint in light of the continuing massive movement of Mexican workers to the United States.”

My comment: There is a significant difference between our jobs going to Mexico and Mexicans coming here to take American jobs? I would trust my daughter’s ability to play with open bottles of food coloring on top of my wife’s wedding dress before allowing these two to speculate on the viability of the real threat to American workers in line to lose their jobs in the climate of unchecked globalization. She’s 3 and can, on occasion, go two whole days without wetting herself.

Sucking assessment II: (pg. 70) The authors judge the claim made by Perot to be false because “The excess growth of imports over growth of exports caused this 6 percent difference. During the same period, manufacturing employment in the United States dropped by 9 percent. The change in employment (minus 9) was 40 percentage points below the increase in consumption of 31 percent. Six percent of this 40 percent difference in employment was accounted for by the increase in net imports”- blah, blah, blah, blah.

My comment: There was a net gain in imports all right- by an estimated 10-20 million*** from the election of Perot’s competitor (Clinton) in 1992 until just before the recession of 2008. Undeniable. In Greenwald and Kahn’s sequel- “How Best can Fictional Characters Invade Earth?” Greenwald will write that it is better for the earthlings if Kang, while shouting orders in Rigellian, invades our planet, colonizes it and subjects earthlings to a life of servitude before Kodos does so while speaking English. (Note- this joke relies on someone having a working knowledge of the two aliens from The Simpsons; Rigellian is said to resemble English.)

bLow me down: (pg. 71) “Lower-level manual jobs, in the Operator/Fabricator/Laborer/Farmer category, have not increased at all. What has not declined are the fears about the potential for accelerated job losses through outsourcing and offshoring.”

My pre-comment: Greenwald . . . Kahn- have you ever owned a tree? Have you ever seen that all of the leaves that descend to the ground in the fall don’t always stay on your property? Imagine you own a couple of maple trees with orange leaves and one day you walk outside to find that you have hundreds of yellow or red leaves in your yard. Would you imagine all of those leaves changed color and shape overnight, or would you think that those are leaves from another tree? How many metaphors for the reality of outsourcing would you like? Jobs lost overseas seem no more traceable in the authors’ world, than the travels of leaves in any neighborhood in the United States. I beg to differ.

My comment: Those two have nothing to do with each other. Blue collar jobs have not increased and fears about outsourcing have not declined, nor should they. When a number of my bosses indicate that things are going well in a recently opened satellite installation housing hundreds of employees and a boss answers direct questions about the future expectations of his employees and answers that he would expect things to continue to go well overseas, without refuting that there could be more phases to the job migration, what would you be-leave? Yeah, I spelled that wrong on purpose.

Never break the chain quiz: This paragraph will have nothing to do with the lyrics of Fleetwood Mac’s song- “The Chain”. Greenwald . . . Kahn- you’ve heard of the game- Red Rover? Imagine two teams of ten children facing each other holding hands in a line and take turns sending children over to the other line of children, when their names are called, in an effort to get two kids to stop holding hands. The authors not only do not perceive a real threat to American jobs being shipped overseas, but haven’t seen how people have come here to take American jobs. Quickly, who is most likely to lose a game of Red Rover if 18 children stand on one side of the gym and two stand facing them? If a competitive Red Rover league starts in your grandchild’s school system, please don’t answer the call if Vegas wants you to handicap the contests. Let the government contract this work out to Halliburton.

My blah, blah, blah: Relative to Greenwald and Kahn’s confusing percent-laden faux-proof about the lack of immigration’s effect on American jobs- consider my rebuttal. In 1986 former president Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act granted amnesty to illegals and offered a chance for certain agricultural workers who had been in the country since the first day of 1982 to become legal citizens. This is important to note, as the presidential election of 1992 (the one that included Perot and his “sucking sound” comment) was just six years after Reagan signed this bill. “Even though the Census Bureau estimates a 10-12 million illegal alien population, it is commonly known that many aliens avoid the census count. A more reliable estimate, provided by Bear Stern, estimates nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. as of 2005 . . . it is important to recognize that illegal immigration rises as legal immigration rises.” (Source: http://www.illegalaliens.us/numbers.htm). Isn’t it possible that Greenwald and Kahn are being naïve about the number of immigrants who were actually in the U.S. and employed illegally by a company in the years preceding and directly following the signing of IRCA? Not sure about you, but I’ve read a story here or there about illegal immigration crack-downs, packing plant raids, the building of fences, and that immigrants may not necessarily make border patrol agents aware of their comings and goings. You just can’t take those types of reported numbers for granted- just like you can’t assume the number of people who have admitted to grilling cheddarwurst naked over high heat is less than 5%. And really, do Greenwald and Kahn want to take the narrow view of just looking at manufacturing jobs and how they might have affected lower class and lower middle class American citizens? Consider the drain on health care (i.e. emergency room visits) and education to name just two other issues. In California, “$7.7 billion [is] spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants” in Texas $3.9 billion. (Source- http://www.usillegalaliens.com. Also, see parts 22-27.)**** These guys want to talk about the change in net imports and employment levels as they relate to productivity, based on legal immigration; what would be the incentive for companies to report their number of illegal workers and what are the odds that three guys named Carlos, Jose and Juan would be more productive than one guy named Joe. The toad that lived under the hose attached to the back of the house the last 6 weeks of summer is a more gifted thinker.

Blue collar jobs: (pg. 73) “Low-level blue-collar jobs are largely safe from further erosion due to cheap imports. [and the recession, immigration is down, and because we don’t export anything, because of the cheap imports] Transportation, distribution, construction, and agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of these jobs, and all of them must be done locally. [The last time a construction job was done without the assistance of immigrants was during the Carter administration. Apparently these guys haven’t had the shingles on their house replaced in the last three decades.] The other 30 percent, or roughly 5 million jobs, are in manufacturing. As we have demonstrated, they are more threatened by automation—productivity improvements—than by globalization. Also, they are not great jobs by almost any standard, and any losses here will be more than offset by growth in lower-level service jobs.”

My comment: . . . which will pay less because of how little experience the people coming into those jobs will have. These guys would celebrate a job that was kept in our country if the same person losing an application technology job could somehow be employed by the zoo to pick woodticks off of snow monkeys- especially if contracted to do so by Halliburton.

Under a bold heading- “What about Wages?” (pg. 74) “The baby-boom generation, the increase in the number and percentage of women holding jobs outside the home, and legal and illegal immigration on a large scale have all expanded the supply of labor, which should exert a downward pressure on wages.”

My comment: Should? Has! It is peculiar, given the overall thesis of the two authors- that people losing their jobs here has virtually nothing to do with globalization, which is quite difficult to prove or refute, and should be uncertain about something which is irrefutable.

Earnings and compensation: (pg. 75) “. . . there is a distinction between earnings and total compensation, which includes the cost of fringe benefits like medical insurance, employer pension contributions, workman’s compensation premiums, and government-provided unemployment insurance. Reported average hourly earnings do not include fringe benefits. As the cost of these benefits has increased, especially for medical insurance, the gap between earnings and total compensation has also been widened.”

My comment: This is the best point they make in the entire book and is completely ancillary to their thesis. If they could have repeated it 700 times and included a chapter on words that rhyme with globalization, they would have been onto something. Unfortunately, we are thought to be rewarded with total compensation that is only beneficial to us if we get sick and use the services that we are already paying for. Something to look forward to when we are old, to have the opportunity to get sick more often so we have a greater need for health care services we think our employers are subsidizing, but are really keeping our wage increases low so they can afford to continue to employ us. Hint, it isn’t working. See, they’re trying to pass health care legislation. The point they made on page 75 at least convinced me that they wouldn’t advise us all to steal $2,000 of our own money, from our own bank.

Globalization’s effect on wages: (pg. 76) “In discussions about what globalization is doing to income, the most frequently cited figure is real wages . . . However, because it excludes both supervisory workers and fringe benefits, trends in real wages tend to understate aggregate average improvements in standards of living. Since this trend has coincided with the recent intensification of globalization, globalization has been blamed for the meager rise in real wages. But because the real wage figures are an increasingly unreliable measure of economic well-being, they represent the worst case of the harm that can be attributed to globalization.”

My comment: How’s that? Facts happen to dispel what you are trying to disprove- that globalization’s effects and causes are overstated, but you are going to ignore them? Given the consistency of their type of logic, this is not surprising. Also, they fairly leave out the salaries of supervisory workers because this would bring up the average compensation of non-management types and also leave out fringe benefits, that could have been “earned” by letting x number of average workers go, in favor of globalizing their work force. Kudos.

That old globalization: (pg. 77) “The negative impact of globalization on wages is old, not current, news. The effects of globalization on wages may have been significant in the past, but they have been moderated by the shift in employment toward service jobs, which are far less vulnerable to foreign competition than those in manufacturing. As this trend continues, it is unlikely that things will get worse in the future.”

My comment: How would they know? I’ve already commented how difficult it is economically for people to lose a job that paid them for their longevity, in conjunction with their performance, in order to have to prove themselves in another field starting at the bottom of the pay scale. And the point isn’t that the problem isn’t new, but their contention that the problem isn’t real.

Chapter 4- Can We Make any Money? What Globalization Does to Profits

Their ability: Greenwald and Kahn are qualified to write a book about globalization. If this particular offering were hocked as a work of fiction, they could very well be onto something. Their assessment of the car industry, as it concerned the major American car companies from the 1970s through this first decade of the 2000s, their overall health as judged by the S&P 500 index is understandable and meaningful. I would blame rather the imperialism of the federal government for assisting in the destruction of the American car manufacturers rather than globalization. The government allows far too many imports into this country, while we export relatively few by comparison. This is attributable to the world at large not valuing our vehicles for many reasons, not the least of which are size, fuel efficiency, price, and environmental impact, given the lack of constraints the government places on our car manufacturers.

Later in the book, on a number of occasions I was not qualified to follow Greenwald and Kahn’s arguments. I would owe this to my shortcomings rather than to their inability to properly explain themselves. I never insisted I had an expertise in the field of economics, just a working knowledge and an eye for bs. The reason we don’t fear a monster in the closet is because we’ve never seen one. If there is a monster in the closet, (i.e. a slew of workers taking our jobs, with a couple of professors minimizing the reality of this probable eventuality), there is no reason to pretend not to see it.

Globalization- the golden age of opportunity: (pg. 83) “Perhaps globalization has been an opportunity, rather than a threat. After all, economies of scale might become more potent with the world as a market, and the ability to reproduce successful and efficient business models across the world could usher in a golden age of global profitability for established companies in the developed world.”

My comment: Perhaps we can thrive by eating clouds, make friends with bunnies and the money tree won’t ever be cut down. What utopia hell are these guys trying to sell and to whom? Globalization is a threat to those who will lose their jobs and an opportunity for those who will benefit from that job loss. A “golden age of global profitability”- you mean more than now? Do some research on corporate profits. These guys are ushering in the golden age of bullshit. My only hope is that it is less well received than “The Bridges of Madison County” or any of the blasphemous works of the Marquis de Sade. Note to self- check on whether any of Donatien Alphonse François’ works weren’t blasphemous. Hey, when a guy spends 32 years of his life in prison or in an insane asylum, the question has to be asked. Fortunately for me, the world has lessened its punishment for blasphemy. Fortunately, for Greenwald and Kahn they’ve also removed the burden of truth a non-fiction writer formerly felt compelled to uphold.

The golden age again: (pg. 83 again) “However, just as the fear that globalization will eliminate profits has not been supported by events, so, too, the hope that firms will thrive through global expansion has not been realized.”

My comment: Why would corporations be so eager to throw over the anchors (their local employees) for global ones that might cost them a third, or a fifth, as much (paying them lower salaries, no health care coverage and no unemployment)? How rewardingly indecisive and ambiguous these fellows are. Let’s stay tuned.

Touting the authors only to ridicule them: (middle of pg. 83-middle of page 88) The two authors***** deliver some easy to understand examples of international corporate expansion and describe the natural workings of competitive environments centered around a business’ desire to become profitable, how that becomes possible and what can prevent it. Then, about midway through page 88, the authors write about how the oil industry is a local commodity. If that were true, and we import about 62% of our oil (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/oil_imports.html), why would American gas companies make windfall profits almost every year and be made to testify before congress on the justification of these profits? (See- “Congress Questions Big Oil’s Big Profits” from April 1, 2008; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23901712/.) The oil industry seems pretty global to me. My son wants to know why he can’t wake up at nap time. But I try to get him to understand that it is hard to wake up if you’ve never really been asleep. I think my chances of getting through to him would be better if he didn’t really exist and had a clinically diagnosed case of insomnia than are my chances of convincing the authors of a book about globalization, that they have written it out of spite.******

Chapter 5- International Finance in a Global World, Home Field Advantage

Kwan Ju from middle management and the financial logistics of globalization: (pg. 111-113) The authors write about Kwan Ju as a “happily established” “middle manager for a major South Korean Bank.” They describe him as an upper middle class citizen who is eventually subject to the financial marketplace, and to which they ascribe his downfall to something, anything, but globalization. Who knows but that they are right. It would be hard to get into the particulars without spending in excess of two pages on facts about Ju’s predicament in economic terms. The authors also jump into something called FDI- Foreign Direct Investment and show, with another one of their tables, how little the U.S. has given to foreign markets in terms of gross fixed investment. I am skeptical of the assertions made by the authors. Their continued attempts to qualify (i.e. limit) what is considered a local or global growth, productivity, management, or investment throughout the rest of the book has caused me to distrust their assertions. In morally criminal terms- they may not kill a man, but appear disinterested in saving him- the lie of omission is their most direct avenue to the avoidance of truth- like an ant that suspects the terro will kill his colony, but when he stops to consult with his buddies, chooses not to discuss that with them.

My limitations: In my limited capacity to understand financial markets, I could reason that the very nature of the financial industry, now that foreign investors have their hands and money in every market of the globe, could easily be attributable to globalization. I cannot speak in terms of “net incremental financial flows” “per capita investment” and “local private funds”. I understand there are speculators and investors and the latter may throw money at a market based on the advice of the former. The investors appear to me to be quite clearly manipulating a global economy, even if they are making phone calls to substantially, albeit obliquely, reduce the value of markets across the globe from the security of their own, very local, telephone connection or cell phone tower. The authors write on pg. 114 that “Foreign investors become nervous.” They interpret market conditions and act accordingly, not unlike an employee that sees his job status being affected by other market conditions, not necessarily independent of the manipulations of those speculators or investors. On page 113 the authors relate that “Kwan Ju, with much of his savings having evaporated, was laid off in March 1998. His experience was shared by millions of people in developing or recently developed economies, and it was widely attributed to globalization.” For good reason?

The reality of globalization may live on: I am too ignorant in the world of economics, in writing about differentiated trade, market conditions and things that go on behind the scenes, but I suspect that these two have done to the threat of globalization what Swayze and Moore did for the clay in that scene in Ghost, while in the midst of foreplay. Or not. Thinking globalization isn’t real is like a gateway drug to thinking that Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of sense. Pretty soon, you’re listening to a podcast of Hannity during your lunch, with your hand down your pants without realizing how much self-awareness you’ve lost. Reading the opinions of these two guys is more comparably difficult than removing the mailbox key from the ignition of a 2005 Mazda MPV on Labor Day with a vice grip. My son sure gets around.

Chapter 6- A Genuine Global Economic Problem, Replacing the Consumer of Last Resort

What are we to do?: (pg. 154) “Any attempt by the United States to eliminate its deficit by devaluing the dollar is likely to be met by countervailing devaluations from other countries. Other measures to eliminate the deficit, like reducing economic growth or imposing barriers to trade, are also likely to be met by offsetting adjustments from other countries.”

My comment: So, there is literally nothing the U.S. can do but agree to send jobs to other countries? Have I compared the lack of a Constitutional precedent that would protect American jobs to Soylent Green yet? If you haven’t heard- “Soylent Green is people!”

Full employment: (pg. 155) “Generally, full-employment demand in the face of increasing trade deficits has come from a steady rise in U.S. consumer spending and an associated decline in U.S. household savings.”

My comment: Imagine how little the U.S. consumer spends when his savings are drastically reduced by his not having a job because it has been given to someone overseas.

Preferences: (pg. 162) “Jobs in the developed world are not going to disappear because of globalization. Automation has always had a greater impact on gross job losses than trade, and we have lived with automation for more than a century.”

My comment: So, the jobs won’t disappear because of globalization, but because of automation. That is a relief. And no contractor hired from overseas is responsible for automating any of the processes in any company in the country? Isn’t that like saying that when a gulper eel devours a fish in the deep dark recesses of the ocean, it is the acids inside the belly of the beast that work to decompose the fish and wasn’t the eel’s fault for finding the prey appetizing? The idea that globalization and automation are mutually exclusive is more ridiculous than a cat ghost shopping for adult diapers in a bait shop. (Note: I am considering the automation of computer software applications and programs which take the place of workers that used to perform the same tasks.)

Coping skills: (pg. 162) “For companies, coping with global markets can be difficult. But they have managed to cope effectively in the past, and the evidence of recent business profitability suggests that they continue to do so.”

My comment: How difficult companies that are rewarded for sending jobs overseas are coping with globalization is not my concern. It is in the company’s best interest to cope with global markets. The hardship a company bears for having sold their soul******* for a larger profit margin is in no way comparable to the prospect and reality of that company selling out hundreds and thousands of American workers in order to employ some counterparts thirteen hours ahead of them.

Consistent but wrong: (pg. 165) “Without doubt, as we have seen in the examples of China, India, and other Asian countries, economic growth helps to keep populations at home. Economic development, as we have noted, depends far more on local than global forces.”

My comment: But it is global effects that arise when local controls, efficiency and means of production (productivity) fail; local forces are the cause to globalization’s effects. The exception, economic development in the U.S. may be dependent on sending jobs overseas, which equals allowing other countries to keep their populations at home, because they can work for American companies- staying where they are.

Exaggeration: (pg. 115) “Notwithstanding these dramatic episodes, the overall impact of globalization in financial markets, as elsewhere, has been exaggerated.”

My comment: Agreed, and perhaps the overall impact in non-financial markets has been exaggerated, but don’t tell that to someone who sees work being sent to overseas contractors and sees people overseas come to his company to get trained in on his job. Don’t tell me that is not the epitome of globalization. I wonder if we can outsource an apprenticeship for professorial types who attempt to weakly refute the going logic, who have apparently not lived the events they are confident in discrediting. Putting in my contact lenses, despite my daughter’s defense of pulling on my pants to get me to play with her, is more difficult than defending the honor of the reality of globalization.******** As far as global financial markets are concerned, one should consider globalization and the effects of the recession as a package deal. Recession is likely masking job loss. The recession may just convince bosses that globalizing is a good idea- pay one fifth of the salary, none of the health care benefits, and a company’s operating profit margin increases because they can limit the most expensive outlay of almost any company- controllable costs (i.e. employee salaries).

DONE WITH THOSE GUYS: ONTO SOME OTHER GLOBALIZATION IS KING RUBES

More rebuttal paragraphs: “Call Center Jobs Drifting Overseas” by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, December 9, 2003. Ambergris Solutions “is among 45 Filipino and foreign players in the Philippines’ booming call center business, which has generated 30,000 jobs in just five years here – new local employment at the expense of American workers . . . The United States has lost 250,000 call center jobs to India and the Philippines since 2001, according to Technology Marketing Corp., a Norwalk, Conn.-based company specializing in call centers and telemarketing.” I’ll bet, but the company may as well specialize in attempting to plausibly link shingles contracted by ego-maniacal goat herders to the 9/11 attacks, for people like Greenwald and Kahn to believe that the facts don’t lie. “Forrester Research estimated last year that 3.3 million service industry jobs, including call centers, and $136 billion in wages, will move to countries like India, Russia, China and the Philippines.” No kiddin’. And people- that was from an article written in 2003. NFL teams are still in the process of copying the wildcat formation, can you imagine the pronounced increase in outsourcing from six years ago? It isn’t even worth my time to investigate.

Organized labor: And the competition overseas is targeting our language and culture as a way to put U.S. consumers at ease about foreign involvement with international trouble-shooters; smart and devious: “As a hedge against [complaints by customers seeking tech support on calls routed to India] the Philippines has a Call Center Academy that focuses on teaching English proficiency, as well as American culture, call center technology and sales, telemarketing and customer service skills.” Concerning pay- “The trade and industry department says a Philippine agent, with starting pay of about $218 to $273 monthly, gets only a fifth of an American counterpart.” (Source: “Call Center Jobs Drifting Overseas” article as referenced above.)

Executive horse muffins: I may be watching too many MASH reruns with Harry Morgan.********* I could quote dozens of books and articles which either defy the reality of globalization or that are in support of it, but by and large the argument comes down to this- expressed in a paper written on March 17, 2004 for the Center for Trade Policy Studies, titled “Job Losses and Trade- A Reality Check” by Brink Lindsey (with a heading which precedes this point which reads: Executive Summary): “Even in good times, job losses are an inescapable fact of life in a dynamic market economy. Old jobs are constantly being eliminated as new positions are created. Total U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase, a breathtaking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost. In other words, for every one new net private-sector job created during that period, 18.4 gross job additions had to offset 17.4 gross job losses.” I’ve seen this point made often, like it is some illness that makes its way through a house susceptible to germs, no matter how often most people in the house wash their hands. People who listen to Hannity or Limbaugh on the conservative side are become slaves to this kind of logic and the liberals are not immune either, swallowing virtually anything people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews or Anderson Cooper have to say about global warming or the lack of social welfare being visited on the less fortunate.

Executive cow patties: When Mr. Lindsey writes of the “inescapable” and “cyclical” nature of job losses and gains he does so as if all jobs are created equally and endowed by their creator with certain “inalienable rights”. We learned that Jefferson was a bit of a hypocrite for keeping slaves while penning those words and that conservative or liberal types, who support job loss for the supposed economic benefit of all, are hypocrites. If I regularly attend a dinner party each month where the same excellently prepared, and good tasting food is served on each occasion and am told that not only will many of my acquaintances no longer be invited, but they are going to send most of the food out to people who live in apartments away from the event, but add twice the number of menu options, while changing them all to foods that are tarragon-based, (which I am allergic to), how is that a positive change? Wouldn’t I need to be qualified for, or find desirable, (from an economic/money-making standpoint), the jobs that are being created? Death is inescapable . . . taxes are inescapable . . . neighbors deciding not to clean up their dog’s excrement before Halloween trick-or-treating so that you get it all over your shoes is inescapable; job losses due to globalization is not inescapable. It is the very insufferable reality of government irresponsibility allowing corporate greed!

Executive bird potty: My son came up with that one- the potty part. “Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade and those lost because of new technologies or work processes.” Correct, and there is no difference if legislation is passed which regulates the number of jobs lost, and to what endeavor. Doing nothing is not an option. “To do nothing is in every man’s power.” – Samuel Johnson. We should not continue to elect 535 legislators who while agreeing with this sentiment, ignore the reality it preaches. Let’s pass some legislation and test Lindsey’s theory. So that I am not just offering a complaint without offering a remedy: again I say, let us find where we are wasting government money in local, state********** and federal expenditures, whether on military hardware, social welfare state or entitlement programs, credit card fraud, education or health care spending etc. and direct it appropriately, such as- leaving it in the hands of consumers for example. This would then lower the taxes of the consumers, allowing them to spend more of their own money, and the corporations, allowing regulations like limiting their ability to offshore tens of thousands of jobs overseas to be enacted into law. A tax reduction to corporations which would require the government to more wisely spend our money, would offset major losses limiting a corporation’s right to send American jobs overseas. You simply cannot complain about being overtaxed as a corporation and still get to send jobs overseas. Fix both issues with one law. Also, as I’ve stated before, (particularly in part 42) on the state level- make it no more attractive for a company to be based in Tulsa than in Tallahassee by standardizing tax structures, incentives and guarantees. This will not be easy and also, as I have stated before, campaign finance reform will have to be in place prior to tackling the issue of a standardized corporate tax structure on the national levels (i.e. state v. state, where one state’s limitations prevent it from competing for the right to gain a corporation’s base of operations).

Executive pig cookies: Lindsey also writes that “Job losses are always painful, and the
recent recession and sluggish recovery have meant real hardship for many Americans. It is important, however, to shun hysteria and demagoguery in assessing what is going on with the labor market and why.” By having read some on this subtopic, I have found that many economic writers have referred to a recession, or some type of economic downturn, every three years of the past decade, which demagogues like Lindsey have used to justify massive job loss- again, with the idea of not directly linking it to globalization. 2000 (dot com bubble), 2003 or 2004***********, 2006, and of course everyone knows about the current recession, have all taken a bite out of our total job counts, while experts, like Lindsey, maintain that just as many, or more, jobs have been created. Second, I find it charming that the old, “job loss is cyclical” argument is thrown out to defend against the supposed hysteria behind globalization in the same way “experts” throw out the “weather patterns are cyclical” argument to attack the theory of climate change. You know what else is cyclical- executive bull bagels. Ok, maybe that isn’t so much cyclical as constant. (Note: for Lindsey’s full critique of how normal tens of thousands of jobs moving overseas, please see- http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019.pdf.

The sum of all fears: Lindsey writes that “Fears That the U.S. Economy is Running out of Jobs are nothing new.” He then spends a few paragraphs chronicling the history of job loss fears since the 1930s. So, basically, the cumulative effect of our fears about massive job losses has never gone away, like our cumulative complaint about a better legislature, higher taxes, or the drain on the economy predicated by the numerous cases of kangaroo with plantar fasciitis, for which we all have to pay. Lindsey writes about the net number of jobs created in the IT industry which replaced those which were lost to manufacturing. Since those tens and hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs have already migrated to the IT industry, where are those who are in the IT industry, who lose their jobs, likely to find employment, let alone, employment which compensates them fairly for the amount of money they spent on their education? Those who lost manufacturing jobs, could get more schooling and become qualified in a traditional white collar job, with some effort. That is a substantial difference. And is Lindsey just figuring on how many of the jobs are created for Americans and not just jobs that are created, that no American can fill, which is a fashionable and reality-based desire a corporation might have, because then they can, will, and have, looked to outsource it- sighting reasons such as the collective American workforce 'does not produce enough qualified prospective employees,' argument, something I addressed in the subtopic of immigration. Again, the same old argument- the old “fears about globalization is unfounded” crowd must have attended a seminar. Lindsey quotes from Ross Perot, just as Greenwald and Kahn have done and just as the three writers (of the Ten Myths article) below have done. (Caleb’s ant book- pg. 36) (Note: Lindsey actually made a lot more sense in his 11 page paper than Greenwald and Kahn made in their 174 page book. Since I find his argument more credible, I will have to watch what happens to the hundreds of people in the same work sector I work in who are in the process of having their positions moved overseas, and whether they find work elsewhere in a field that suits them economically or personally. Who knows, I may not have to go far to inquire. There is no telling how long I will be working for my present employer. I checked the website for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/) - the recession that manifested itself in the third quarter of 2008 and saw the most jobs lost in the first quarter of 2009 shows a relatively stagnant mass layoff event history since 2005. Again, sans recession, I contend that the overall loss of jobs to globalization will outweigh the gains in the coming years. I believe this in part because: “The number of extended mass layoff events in the third quarter of 2009 reached a record high for any third quarter (with data available back to 1995).” Assume that this is solely, or even primarily because of the recession if you wish.)

This level of employment is unprecedented: At least for now. I read in another column in defense of globalization as a real threat to American jobs- this one has three authors- that “More Americans are employed now than ever before.” The paper clip holding my papers together on this subtopic, that suffers from pleurisy and shortsightedness, is wise enough to laugh at this line, especially after reading this follow up paragraph- “The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today—more than ever before.” Anyone? Have these people looked at the U.S. population figures in the last ten years? There are more people employed because there are more people. Wow. Unbelievable- in 1776, if these three had been alive, while sharing one pair of binoculars, they would have been unable to properly assess the threat level of a hundred rows of armed British soldiers marching toward Boston; they would not have recognized the attack formation, the ridiculous red coats, or perhaps most importantly- the British’ stupid overconfidence in marching straight down a street, or through an open field, toward their intended targets. Lady bugs that huddle in my basement in the fall, attempting to wait out the winter, practicing their skirmish behavior, are more wise than the former British, or the three people it took to write the paper I quote from directly above, the source of which is: “Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing” by Tim Kane, Brett D. Schaefer, and Alison Acosta Fraser, April 1, 2004.)

We’re all in this together- yeah right: For myth #5 our three authors combined to offer this: “Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.” Lower prices do not directly lead to higher standards of living. If the prices of goods and services go down because of globalization and the cost of health care, food, gas, natural gas to heat your residence, and the cost of a residence itself go up, then the standard of living will remain as stagnant as it has in the past decade or longer. (Remember, it is important to be mindful of income inequality, cost of living salary increases relative to real inflation, the number of dependents within the family structure and the cost of goods and services, when calculating the standard of living.) Besides, if the lower prices, which can be directly attributed to globalization, come at the cost of some people losing jobs they won’t be able to replace (in terms of how much an employee can earn), and which used to pay them in something other than hope or cigarettes (i.e. money), it doesn’t matter how low the price of a good or service might be unless it is free, because the unemployed won’t have any money to pay for it. Nice try with the “lower prices for all U.S. firms and families” bit. Like we’re all in this together. I had a soccer coach when I was in fourth grade not play all of his kids, telling me “we” had a better chance of winning if certain kids played and certain kids didn’t. Is there really a “we” if people aren’t contributing? If people lose their jobs because their government wouldn’t protect them, whose team do you expect the unemployed to be on?

Consumer spending rationale: In this article- “Spending Surges, but Jobless Claims Rise” Associated Press, October 1, 2009, I read this- “Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of total economic activity (or at least it will unless the government does something about health care costs), jumped in August by the largest amount in nearly eight years even though personal incomes continued to lag.” I don’t know if the people writing these news stories have the same idea about how unexplainable, cyclical and inescapable everything is, but I wonder if they considered that there is no way to track who is spending the money, while personal income is easy to track. Anyone who doubts the latter should ask the federal government. On the other hand- walk into the Home Depot to buy a space heater, buy it and see if the store register has a way of knowing what nationality you are, whether you are here illegally, or whether you make more than $250,000 a year. I’m insinuating that just because spending is up over expectations, while job losses have somewhat stagnated, doesn’t mean that those who are about to lose their jobs, have just lost them, or just acquired a tenuous position, are the ones spending the money. No one could contend that- excepting those who want to debunk the hysteria surrounding globalization, share binoculars, and need friends to help them treat truth like a rooster that used to be a celebrated cock fighter in a state that has run perilously short of turkeys the third week in November. See . . . because of Thanksgiving . . . they would be desperate . . . and they would need to eat the rooster out of desperation . . . whose abilities have declined. Damn, I should have used the 'cow that is no longer producing milk needs to be slaughtered' metaphor.

Let’s outsource everything: Seriously, pro globalization people just start up a midget’s and dung beetles only bowling league and outsource the official scoring and replay booth reviews to people in the Philippines and shut the hell up! As long as sarcasm and irreverence (and maybe irrelevance) cannot be outsourced, I may be ok.

Again I must include: “It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain

________________________________________________
* I’m going to let you look that one up.

** Also, it seems as if that provision, within the text of HR 3226, proposed by Franken, is in danger of being removed- “ Multiple sources told reporter Sam Stein that the provision—which would prohibit the Pentagon from hiring contractors whose employment contracts prevent employees from taking work-related allegations of rape and discrimination to court—is being targeted by defense contractors. Their lobbyists have reportedly flooded Inouye’s [Appropriations chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)] office, worried they may lose contracts or open themselves up to lawsuits . . . Stein points out that Inouye has received $294,900 from the defense industry over the course of his career. His top two contributors are defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.” Ah, democracy at work. (For text of the quoted material from above see- http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/report-frankens-rape-amendment-may-be-stripped-from-defense-bill.php. TPM LiveWire- “Report: Franken's Rape Amendment May Be Stripped From Defense Bill”, by Rachel Slajda, October 23, 2009. Nowhere in the Constitution does it enumerate where government can restrict contractors specifically, or businesses generally, from including anti-rape clauses in their arrangements- arranged marriages to lampposts or balloons with flat feet- sure. By the way, Franken’s desired amendment was to be included in a defense bill. This wasn’t an amendment he proposed to add to a bill that would imprison all spayed, beige alpacas until they birthed twelve offspring. No reason for the no votes.

*** Why would we not know two of the most valuable pieces of information relative to employment data- how many legals and illegals have been coming into the United States and how many jobs are leaving? Seems to me, these are two fairly important pieces of information. We know how left-handers named Rodriguez fare as starting pitchers on the road in day games in outdoor stadiums that are less than five years old in the months of June and July, but there is no government agency assigned the task of tabulating the number of jobs lost to those coming into our country or the number of jobs sent overseas? I know, there must be an amendment in the Constitution which prohibits this? If there is no such U.S. government agency tracking these figures, can we perhaps globalize this job to a foreign country, and put those who seem to know how ridiculous complaining about the effects of globalization can be out of a job?

**** Those interested in multiple websites projecting the number of illegals per decade- can go to the MPI- Migration Policy Institute website- “The best available estimates place the growth in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population at about 500,000 each year.” (Source- MPI’s “Annual Immigration to the United States: The Real Numbers.” The estimate above- 500,000 is derived from a Pew Hispanic Center estimate.)

***** Or maybe just one. I think Kahn took a break at this point.

****** Holy wow. I checked the book back in and am writing this with some notes I took and some photocopied pages. I don’t have all of the material on hand and had hoped that the book was available online. Amazon has an image of the book with the word “Unabridged” on it. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. Insert your joke here about what the benefits of the abridged version of this topic might be.

******* A company that employs more than a few hundred people still having a soul these days- assume that I am kidding. One thing is for sure- any Faust character represented in music, literature or art in the last 500 years, would be proud of our American corporations, for finding a way to sell another’s soul a few hundred times, at an un-newsworthy interval, concealing the number of jobs lost over a period of time.

******** I also learned that if she stubs her toe and asks for a princess band-aid, you damn well better get it for her so that all is better. This is not the approach I like to take with adults who should know that when they stub their toe on a topic this massive, they should be made aware they are causing other people pain.

********* Harry Morgan starred as Col. Sherman Potter, replacing Maclean Stevenson as the 4077’s man in charge. Potter used a number of colorful euphemisms for things that didn’t add up logically.

********** It was recently discovered that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) had been given a number of flat screen televisions to inmates. Those tvs were also removed, on MN governor Tim Pawlenty’s order, and “reinstalled in veterans homes and at National Guard bases.” The real problem, as D.J. Tice writes in a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune column, “It’s Easy to Pounce on that Political Football” November 1, 2009, OP1 and OP3, stems from a decision made by the Minnesota legislature 15 years ago to consider “sexually dangerous person[s]” as patients and not as prisoners which escalated the annual price tag on their incarceration/hospitalization by $89,000. Quite a savings to be had for the additional 200 “patients” as were incarcerated in the early 1990s. I wonder who pays for that? The odds that a sexual criminal can be rehabilitated aren’t worth that price. I can guarantee this isn’t the most egregious of the little-known, publicly-funded, government-sanctioned misallocations.

*********** Lindsey writes of the “recent recession”. As I referred to above, his paper was written in March of 2004. I can only assume that he is referring to a recession that took place in either 2003 or 2004, which I do not recall, but about which I will trust his judgment.

Middle Class Part 52: The Summer of Death . . . Panels and the Health of Globalization

2009-10-09T14:21:00.009-05:00

Summer of Death and death panels: Since April 25th, 2009 these famous people have died:
Bea Arthur, Dom Deluise, Chuck Daly, David Carradine, Ed Mcmahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Fred Travolena, Karl Malden, Steve McNair, Oscar Mayer III, Walter Cronkite, Gidget (the Taco Bell dog), the health care bill, Corazon Aquino, John Hughes, Eunice Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Patrick Swayze; who’s next- Wilfred Brimley . . . Alan Thicke? There was even the internet-reported death of Jeff Goldblum. Personally, my family was also touched by death. Unfortunately, for those whose summer thesis is the economic subjection of the middle class and whose source material is my contribution, this bloga lives! Long before we heard anything about death panels, celebrities began dropping like tears from my daughter’s eyes when her brother takes her blankie away. Perhaps these celebrities aren't really gone and have rather had their careers sent overseas. How will we know for sure?

The death of reason: I’ve seen this one coming from a number of areas- on Facebook, FoxNews and from an editorial in the Star Tribune- from September 8, 2009 (A8) “In the 1930s, the German government indoctrinated the school-children with their white supremacy and socialist culture. Our U.S. government has now sent the first “education” package to our schools. When do our children receive their Obama arm bands?” Mr. letter writer sir, how is it that a message from the president of the United States about social responsibility can be an indoctrination into hero worship and a march toward fascism? I know I'm a little late on this one, and actually wrote this in early September, that is how busy the second half of the summer has been. Also, how is it that a sitting president, who has occupied the position and has barely any more experience on the world stage than anyone in the Sasquatch community can win the nobel peace prize? Handy Manny and the Wiggles may have done more for international relations.

The death of the health care debate: The debate goes on, but I’m not sure it could be less effective, in terms of our actually getting a bill passed, than if congress approved a measure requiring that all congressmen nickname their own pudendum.

Death of globalization: One thing that may never die is globalization, though at least two men will tell you how unreal the threat is, and how natural and unthreatening is its existence in our daily lives, citing historical precedent. Not a lot of consistency there. I just used the Emerson quotation about “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” in part 50. Being consistent has the inherent benefit of not confusing the hell out of people. Is the present iteration of globalization completely unreal, less so than the expected world wide spread of the swine flu this fall, or is it something with which Americans have had to contend since Columbus? Pick one.

GLOBALIZATION

Originalism: There is no constitutional amendment in the offing that would protect the continued flow of jobs away from American workers, to the delight of Constitutional originalists who could justify about any right their little hearts desire. I heard an originalist justify his holding a neighbor at gunpoint, forcing the latter to put together a recently purchased computer desk because he couldn’t follow the directions. The lunatic mentioned- “I do have the right to assembly.”

Ghosts: I imagine the jobs and the American workers who currently have them as so many ghosts about to be absent from the company for which I work. Thankfully, as evidenced by this headline- help is on the way: “Obama Speeds Projects to Create, Save 600,000 Jobs” Reuters, June 8, 2009. I wasn’t this enthralled when Mr. Incredible was in the process of destroying that first massive, tentacled-robot created to eradicate superheroes. Unfortunately, many in the middle class would benefit only indirectly. The jobs our fair presidential hero would create or save by expediting the work are those that cannot be outsourced,*- construction on new waste and water systems, airport maintenance and construction jobs, and funding for 135,000 education jobs, etc. All noble endeavors meant to kick start the economy, but that won’t protect the millions of potential lost jobs safe from people who think like these two slackers** . . .

Don’t judge a book by its cover: Bruce C. Greenwald and Judd Kahn have written a book about the outsourcing of millions of jobs overseas- “globalization” with this subtitle “the irrational fear that someone in China will take your job” (2009, 170 pages.) Having read the whole thing, I wonder really what these two would know about being in the work force, how a number of my co-workers have actually trained people to take our jobs. The actual subtitle of the book should be “the reality that someone from India will come here to take your job.” Why would I think this? Because I am a professor who apparently has never worked in a job that is a candidate for being exported, who pontificates from the secure confines of my office, teaching thousands of guppies whose wet dreams consist of making their professors proud?*** Nah, because I have seen workers from India come here to be trained on the work that I am presently doing, that is a candidate to be moved overseas in phase two of my company’s surrogacy of our nation’s economic heroes- (i.e. of people who are not Americans- who will not need to be paid health care, unemployment, or, at best, half as much as they are paying me in salary). If Obama wants to save jobs he should find a way to stop them from migrating to the eastern world, but I’m not sure how he is going to do that, as he apparently cannot do the seemingly unprecedented thing of delivering a message to children that they should stay in school and not do drugs. Very very worthy of a soccer mom’s hysteria, hysteria usually spent at getting their disinterested eight year olds more playing time in a sport they despise, rather than combating the second coming of [insert the name of your favorite historically famous for his sadism world leader here]. Yes, if Obama cannot speak to children about the benefits of education, caution them against being the type of educators like Greenwald and Kahn, then there is no hope for a law that would prevent corporations from giving their own employees a hall pass to the unemployment line. Can you imagine what the free-trade-or-death conservatives would say then? I would rather have a ménage a trois with a couple of nectarines with torn ACLs who have declared a fatwah against people who bring reading material into the water closet than swallow the findings of two professors who are more annoying than C-3PO after a romantic weekend spent in the company of the tin man from The Wizard of Oz where the former just goes on and on about how unlikely it is that one of them could become impregnated . . . For the record, 750 million to 1.

Deconstructing globalization: The two authors, Bruce C. Greenwald (B.S. and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an M.PA. and an M.S. from Princeton) and Judd Kahn (B.A. from Harvard and a Ph.D. from the University of California) take a look at the historical trends of globalization from many angles; however, very few of their views are taken from the right angles. The two**** begin their narrative by dispelling the rumors of the past and present and reducing everyone else’s work in the area of global economic speculation to hack status. The intimidating inclusion of tables of facts- percentages and averages is flummoxing and I imagine are always included in order to support their overall theory- that they don’t know crap about what someone who is working at a job knows about how real globalization is. Together, these two hold more degrees than a thermometer. Unfortunately, the last time it was determined by a critical reader that their contributions to a company were deemed subpar (as measured against an employee half a world away to whom they can pay a fifth of the salary and none of the medical benefits), and their job was a candidate for overnight shipment to China or invasion from India was . . . ? Well, now actually. As the manager of complete bullshit 3.0, I’ve decided to outsource total unadulterated mystification in the content area of globalization to more qualified individuals- like those who are sentenced to jail for six months for yawning- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jailed-for-yawning-10-aug10,0,3679452.story. Below, I provide their deeply-biased perspective and offer a competing view.

Introduction
Blame game: (pg. xv) Critics blame globalization “for everything from mass poverty in Africa and Latin America to the falling living standards for workers in Europe and North America.”

My comment: The number of studies, surveys, factual information and labor statistics at my disposal that would prove that in fact, the loss of ten thousand jobs in America to the same number of workers performing the same tasks in India can be directly linked to lower pay for those who keep their jobs in America is overwhelming and something some people’s pets that were put to sleep two summers ago would be able to comprehend. Two guys with a combined- five advanced degrees can’t grasp that? Later, I’ll get to the pro-globalization camp’s insistence that unchecked free-trade and unregulated globalization can cure the world of cancer, illuminate the dark without electricity, put food on the table of the unemployed and allow a one-legged cricket to negotiate someone’s over-fertilized back yard without swearing.

Distractions: (pg. xvii) In the book, Greenwald and Kahn distract the reader by referring to things like imports, exports, recovering European economies, the pronounced fear in the 1980s of the Japanese buying American companies and a number of things that aren’t always directly related to job loss to competitors in other countries via outsourcing. If a Ford plant closes in Michigan, that isn’t outsourcing or globalization if Ford refuses to make safer or more fuel efficient cars. No one could argue with that. I’m interested in jobs that can be directly tied to globalization, to the infiltration of cheap labor from other countries into the United States in the manufacturing area, that costs an American their job. The latter is not an example of globalization either, and I’ve never maintained that the focus on job loss should be either foreign or domestic, it should be both, as both negatively impact the middle class’ economic prospects, in addition to the poor’s. Obviously, the millions of illegals threatens us domestically and simplistically threatens the poor economically, while foreign workers, particularly in the area of internet technology and call center services, among other areas are by and large threatening the middle class economically. My point is that Greenwald and Kahn have incorrectly assessed the reality of job loss as a facade and have brought up negative indicators or distracting ancillary points that don’t directly address the job loss. Unfortunately, as I'll demonstrate next time, they have plenty of company.

Case in point: The authors write that “The third glaring weakness with globalization debate is that it largely ignores the information that is essential to understanding what is really going on. There are readily available data on occupation and employment, [which the authors have largely ignored, which I will show] on the composition of national output and trade, on economic development and growth, on business profitability, and on the balance of payments and debt levels.” (pg. xxiii) The economy can grow as a measure of production and for a number of other reasons, despite massive job losses and businesses can surely become even more profitable than they already are, because of job losses. Having read the book I would not be surprised if the two authors could not find the fault in this logic: The average median income of Americans has risen 4% in the last year. Let’s look at this simplistically. What they won’t mention, despite the number of tables is this- if one white collar worker gets a 6% raise and another worker gets a 2% raise, the numbers can be very deceptive and be not at all indicative of what is actually going on with the AVERAGE American worker, the one whose job is a candidate to be handed to someone overseas (the reality of globalization), or one that’s salary increases can be minimized across his lifetime by the fact that qualified workers reside elsewhere (the threat of globalization).

Chapters (my worthless comments against those that justify corporatism appear in parenthesis)-
1- It May Be News, But It Isn’t New: A Brief History Of Globalization- (it is brief because it is new)- (1-21)
2- Countries Control Their Fates: How Little Globalization Explains- (until you realize that the voter cannot control their representatives)- (23-53)
3- Employment Trends for Globalization 3.0: Are All the Good Jobs Going Away?- (inconceivable!)- (55-77)
4- Can We Make Any Money? What Globalization Does to Profits (centralizes them)- (70-110)
5- International Finance in a Global World: Home Field Advantage (and the home team is used to playing in the dark, so won’t really know its opponent until it bites them in the ass)- (111-133)
6- A Genuine Global Economic Problem: Replacing the Consumer of Last Resort (even after you’ve replaced all the workers)- (135-160)
7- Conclusion: Beyond Economics (was beyond me)- (161-170)

Chapter 1- It May Be News, But It Isn’t New: A Brief History Of Globalization

“It May Be News, But It Isn’t New” is a chapter devoted to informing the reader how historically and economically attractive is using another country’s workforce, usually via immigration. See parts 22-27 of my blog (or recall them from your photographic memory if need be), or do some searching around the word “immigration.” Eventually you will see how frustrated, 21st century Americans were with congress’ failed attempt to fix that major issue. Sometimes I think congress is happy the recession came along to fix the problem of immigration- almost like infecting a family of uakari with colitis to distract them from their quadriplegia.

Globalization measured against history: (pgs. 3-4) “Globalization, whether measured by trade, movements of capital, or emigration, peaked between 1910 and 1920, and then declined steadily for the next 30 to 40 years.”

My comment: I am well aware of how anxiously natives to this country, from American Indians to the descendants of English settlers whose toil and hardships drastically shortened their lives, looked upon immigrants who came to our country for a better life. And the resolution, which came long after it should have, were labor and wage laws and unions which protected the workers. Any chance of that being the case in this instance is a pipe dream. This is not your grandfather’s globalization.

Manufactures v. service: (pg. 9) “. . . as incomes have risen, consumers have been increasing the share they spend on services and shrinking the share going to manufactures.” The authors also point out that the cost of manufactures, like furniture and clothing have decreased, and that the amount of money consumers spend on service-oriented commodities, (medical care and business and educational services) has increased.

My comment: The reason the former items have become more affordable is that many of them are not manufactured here, those jobs have long since migrated out of the country. Two other key points- incomes have not really risen because they have not risen against inflation, a better indicator of individual or class economic health, and- who exactly will be able to afford furniture, shelter or clothing if they do not have a job to purchase those goods? Never mind you Luddites, the desire to process a rhetorical question has been outsourced.

We don’t make it: (pg. 10) “Manufactures have historically been easier to trade than services, which, in the great majority of cases, are produced and consumed locally.”

My comment: What are the major examples of a good that is produced and manufactured in the U.S. which the rest of the world is clamoring to purchase, which has apparently healed the massive U.S. trade deficit about which even inanimate objects are aware? People who write books should realize that all readers won't believe things such as 50 is the new 40 or that international trade laws only apply to women who can pee standing up. (Note: A trade deficit is a negative balance of trade imports exceed imports.)

Soylent Green moment: In a rather dated sci-fi movie from the early 70s, Charlton Heston cries out that Soylent Green, a substance the overpopulated citizens of New York have been consuming, is people. Our unwillingness to regulate any endeavor when it comes to free trade, globalization, immigration, outsourcing or free trade agreements ensures that I will be able to stretch this metaphor into anything, even if it only means a metaphorical allusion to our indirect cannibalization of the American workforce. The authors show that Americans are spending an increasing percentage of their income on services rather than on goods, that things such as furniture, clothes and shelter are being replaced by things like “medical care and business, social, and educational services.” (pg. 10) So, when someone who works in the field of providing a business service, tells you he is in danger of losing his job, he can’t expect to remain employed by disguising himself as a guy who looks like he can assemble an easy chair. Trust me, electronic business service jobs are moving overseas. I would know because I am in that field. I’ve read often that Americans are more productive, but I’m not entirely sure I believe that. From a Wells Fargo LLC article by Mark Vitner- quite a measure of productivity- we cut hours or jobs and remained productive- “Nonfarm productivity surged at a 6.4 percent pace in the second quarter, as hours worked fell much more than output.” (http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/economic-indicators/us-productivity-growth-surged-on-cost-cutting/2009-08-11.html) Sometimes, I feel like the kicker in his bye week on my company's fantasy football roster- I am expendable. One good example of how difficult we have it from the free trade perspective is the issue about the tire imports- whether Obama should have “safeguard[ed] American jobs from Chinese tire imports” or allowed the current disadvantageous trade agreements to remain. (The issue is more complicated than that, but that is just the appetizer; for the full course, see "Obama's Trade Test” Wall Street Journal [WSJ.com] August 4, 2009.)

Shelter built locally: (pg. 11) “The largest single area of consumer demand is shelter, including housing and related services and products. By its very nature, housing itself must be supplied locally. Unless Americans, Europeans, or Japanese live in India or China, they will not be offshoring their housing needs.”

My comment: A non-citizen of the United States has never been brought into the country to perform a task more inexpensively than an illegal immigrant. Just as they miscalculated below in their critique of a Ross Perot line from the 1992 presidential election, they fail here as well. People from other countries can, and have, come here to work in rather large numbers, which costs Americans jobs. I’m more frustrated with these guys than I was with my son after he locked himself and his sister and me in the bedroom with no key to be found, no phone in the room and no one else expected home for 11 hours; and I’m just getting started.

Service functions: (pg. 17) “Government services such as police, fire, road maintenance, parks, welfare, licensing, other administrative functions and homeland security will continue to be provided locally with rare exceptions.”

My comment: Read Dobbs’ Independents Day or the passages I quote from his book in parts 48 and 50. Only the unwitting would assume that the management of our roads and bridges must be handled in house. After all, didn’t the United States oversee the Panama Canal until 1999?

Chapter 2- Countries Control Their Fates: How Little Globalization Explains

Local rather than global effects: (pg. 26) “. . . the implication is that local conditions dominate common, global influences. The evidence is strongly on the side of local circumstances. Throughout the course of economic history, countries have repeatedly experienced markedly different degrees of prosperity in the face of the trends in globalization . . . Local disturbances at the edges of the pond, such as the sudden emergence of China and India as economic players of consequence, have been far more powerful than any global forces affecting the pond as a whole. Ironically, the present concern over what globalization may do to jobs, profits and even national economies has been sparked by changes in these two countries that are local in origin. Evidence both past and present suggests that countries will respond differently to the challenges flowing in China and India . . . There will be little that is universal—global—as their countries adjust to the rise of these and other new economic powers.”

My comment: While the causes may appear to be local in origin (development, productivity, improvement that drives growth, original physical location of the business), the effects are felt globally- quite an important distinction and one that two apparent experts in the field of the lack of global effects felt on the economy, or the individual caught in the economic cesspool, fail to acknowledge repeatedly. Dust particles falling on my flat screen television are aware of this.

Labor force: (pg. 33) “. . . a country’s labor force is locally produced.” My comment: But when they are shipped to other countries, in massive numbers, they have a global result. To wit-

Cause of migrating jobs: (pg. 34) “. . . its [America’s] investment in research and development has fallen behind that of other developed countries. Critics have long predicted that the low quality of the labor force in the United States will lead to the migration of jobs, especially to Asia, where better employees with more modern capital equipment work harder for less money.”

My comment: Would that not be a major factor in globalization? Wouldn’t that be an incentive for corporations, unchecked by the government in any way, to forsake millions of their employees for cheaper labor; would that not be a reason for some rational fear? These professors could admit to standing in the bathroom in front of a mirror, but assume the reflection was someone else’s. Vampires.

Corporate profits: (pg. 34) “The profits of U.S. corporations have been at historic highs, measured as a fraction of total output. Productivity growth in the United States has surpassed that of its major industrial competitors in Japan, Canada, and Europe.”

My comment: So why import millions of locusts for something millions of fleas are already accomplishing? Again, the acknowledged answer is to save money on wages, prospective unemployment and health care costs. How much is enough for these people. I thought those in favor of world domination were dictators from the past or fictional characters from sci-fi movies who wanted to control the galaxy’s water supply. Greedy bastards would be the title of one of my chapters.

Education and training: (pg. 35) the reason for countries becoming more productive- “ . . . does not depend on the arrival of cohorts of highly educated new workers, although minimum levels of education are essential, but on the accumulation of on-the-job learning by existing workers.”

My comment: Good, so we can tell a few hundred thousand foreign workers to go back to their countries so that they might impact the phenomenon of globalization locally? I was going to not include a question mark, and state this as a rhetorical question, but the professors might dispute the veracity of all rhetorical questions. I realize the AMERICAN workforce is aging and we need a certain percentage of foreign workers with some talent to assume those job roles, but didn't our friends Greenwald and Kahn just indicate that the accumulation of on-the-job skills was possible. Get 'er done.

Productivity growth: (pg. 36) “By its very nature, this ingredient of productivity growth depends on local circumstances; it is found on the shop floor, in the back office, and at the loading dock. What happens globally is largely irrelevant.”

My comment: I think that is what the Wizard of Oz tried to tell Toto when the little pup pulled back the curtain. So, what the companies who are raking in all the profits are allowed to do in order to ensure their greed quotient is continually met, is to make sure that global success occurs locally by continuing to import ever more job seekers from elsewhere or allow them to stay where they are and exporting the work? Yes, and my best friend is a toad that hibernates in the summer, and enjoys discussing the history of the transportation of toxic gasses.

China’s economic improvement: (pgs. 39-40) They make a point about the educational improvement of China not being responsible for improved productivity, but rather attribute China’s economic improvement to the relaxing of Marxist policies in about 1980.

My comment: A point for Greenwald and Kahn. Unfortunately, they have the metaphoric equivalent of the number of electoral votes Mondale and Ferraro got in the 1984 presidential election. That would be 10. I won’t speculate on which of them I think most resembles Ferraro; that would be wrong.

Examples of management’s attention to detail: (pg. 42) “Consistent management attention is essential to operational efficiency, which suffers when that attention is diverted elsewhere.”

My comment: How much more diverted could management’s attention be than halfway around the world?

Management’s role: (pg. 44) “The leading role that managerial interventions play in productivity growth limits the impact of globalization as a force. Management is local, not global, and its performance depends on conditions that are themselves overwhelmingly local—the stability of the national economy, the extent to which attention is diverted to dealing with government regulation, the presence of effective competition and incentive structures, adequate infrastructure development, and other local institutional arrangements. It is no wonder that even in a global world, local factors dominate in determining economic results.”

My comment: When managers are the ones making the decisions about how many workers to employ that live a half a world away, this is not a local factor. How ca n I poss i bly w rite a n y s l o o o o o o w e r? I’ve seen very little improvement concerning the qualities of managers in my place of employment in the past 13 years and I’ve been paying attention, apparently not as much as a couple of professors who choose to ignore any findings that contradict they’re overall thesis, but they wouldn’t have been able to write a book without that level of deliberate inattentiveness.

Global v. Local: (pg. 45) “Global trends may aid or hinder local progress to a limited extent, but the overwhelming evidence is that global forces cannot prevent well-functioning local economies from developing rapidly.”

My comment: Perhaps if they wrote that same thought in pig Latin it would ring more true- the roblempay is ocallay not lobalgay. Seriously though, what they write above is true, especially if you either throw half of the evidence away, forget it, or hire a bunch of people from another country to work locally in yours. Clearly that is not globalization. With respect, their point is one I agree with, that management can influence the strength of a company economically, but global forces can and do, overwhelm local ones. Apparently these chaps aren’t scientists and have never heard of the butterfly effect, or conditions off of one coast or in one ocean being transported to another continent’s coasts, or more simplistically have never seen, read, thought about or imagined the effects of science or nature. The world is not made up of independent events that have no impact on each other. They could read their own book looking for evidence of that.

Competition v. Regulation: (pg. 47) “The ability of management to pursue operating efficiency free from overly intrusive governmental or social control also seems important. Competition seems to have been one stimulant for economic growth. A stable economic environment with low inflation also minimizes distracting demands on management attention.”

My comment: Two things I know- freedom to compete is good; rules to ensure that competition is fair, is better. Keeping people employed despite our adherence to those first two principles is better still. And I am a capitalist. Speaking up against carte blanche greed is not socialism. These two guys are so effective at using smoke and mirrors that they would tell someone who lost a lot of money on a business deal that never had a chance for success that a shortfall is just a largely unrecognized season that occurs between an unseasonably cool summer and an early winter.

Social obligation: (pg. 50) “Financial reforms in favor of competition and public markets may well undermine these institutional structures to the detriment of overall economic performance.”
“Extensive social welfare systems work well in Europe, Asia, and Canada because social norms restrain people from excessive consumption of these resources. Identical systems may work far less well in countries like the United States, where those social constraints are much weaker (as a nation of immigrants and their progeny, Americans may have been self-selected to put individual advancement above social solidarity).”

My comment: Meaning, we are impervious to shame- immune, if you will. In a perfect world, we could all sit in our offices, drinking lattes, coming up with lesson plans and book ideas about how to ignore facts and abdicate responsibility. That is the mantra, by the way, of people who don't want any regulations on the financial markets, or their common business practices. While we're at it, why don't we remove the bars from the gorilla cage?

Under the heading- “What About Free Trade?”
(pg. 51) “. . . under more realistic assumptions, the model acknowledges that free trade may benefit some countries only at the expense of others.”

My comment: No shit? To demonstrate this, I would have Mssrs. Greenwald and Kahn sit on each end of a teeter-totter and let them figure it out.

How much job loss?: These guys may have written about how many jobs have NOT been lost to globalization through the years, but the book was too painful to read the first time and I haven’t noted the page to consult which would confirm their inadequacy in this area. So, I would contend that while Greenwald and Kahn are making terrible professors of globology, they would make even worse ornithologists (the study of birds), particularly in the area of migration patterns. They might see a few dozen flocks of birds flying south, or maybe even east, and insist they are just going on vacation, rather than becoming seasonal residents of a particular locale, say, as far east as Manilla. Greenwald and Kahn could conclude that the birds were searching for the ghost of Ferdinand Marcos. If the birds were reported to have become employed by an Internet Technology corporation in Manila, they would still consider it unrelated to anything having to do with outsourcing. Even the fact that ostriches were capable of being employed by an IT company wouldn't surprise them. In fact, our two fair authors would have trouble tracking an ostrich's migration patterns. (Note: ostriches are flightless birds.) The jobs Americans are losing overseas are not all little James Bondses, that dress in tuxedos and scuba gear and climb out of a lake near some villa in the Philipines in such a way that we'll not realize the jobs are gone.
And it is insulting that two guys who clearly don't know what they're talking about could attempt to make people think otherwise.

Economy balloon: Imagine a balloon in the hallway attached to a five foot line of string that’s end is within a bedroom of an average home. The balloon is somewhat held at bay from rising to the ceiling as its density is about the same as the air outside of it. Sometimes it seems ready to dip two feet and at other times, it could rise three feet dependent on the current of air that may come into contact with it. Consider the balloon itself as a symbol, as being representative of the potential economic success of each American; their proximity to the balloon determines their financial success, and their distance signals their failure. Imagine now, that the balloon’s steady rise, consistently predicted by experts with more knowledge than the average onlooker is beginning to come to fruition. As all begin to rejoice in unison at the prospect and reality of their economic success, for their relation to the balloon is quite close, 10% of the people, who are all standing in the hall, much closer to the balloon, combine to close the door upon those within the bedroom.
This causes the relationship of those trapped in the room with the balloon to be at an end as they are not as close to it as formerly, given the impediment. Those caught within the bedroom share the failures of those in the hall, but not the successes. Such is the state of our free market society.***** May those who are unable to see this, choke on their own ignorance. The free market balloon is in dire need of being popped.

I'll be ending the next post with this very applicable quotation and may start next post with it as well: “It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain

_________________________________________________
* Though, I wouldn’t put it past this country to insource foreign workers as some part of quota-hiring of illegals to fill the need of workers performing these tasks in order for the democrats to gain the vote of Mexicans in the next election. Thinking that only American workers would fill the reported 600,000 created or saved jobs mentioned above is an assumption that only two professors with a combined five degrees would contend. People convinced of what Greenwald and Kahn have written would be more difficult to deal with than a woman who had a hyphenated name before you married her.

** Sorry, I would have used a more high-brow word like moron or ignoramus, and stopped myself from offending easy-going people everywhere from being lumped in with two guys who apparently have not experienced the awful possibility that their job may be removed from their self-righteous, but deceptively simple-minded hands.

*** I don’t begrudge just anyone the right to feel as they do despite the lack of experience they may have when balanced against their opinions. I don’t know that someone needs to be devout to have an opinion on god, need to be parents in order to speculate on disciplining children, or need to be NFL head coaches to know how to manage the clock with one timeout in a close game with less than two minutes left. That is, I don’t begrudge them their opinion if it seems like they know what they’re talking about. I think that men should have no opinion on what happens to a woman psychologically while they are pregnant and after they have delivered a child, that civilians should have no opinion on how difficult it is to be a soldier making decisions in combat, and that writers who have never had their job outsourced should never write such an irresponsible book as Greenwald and Kahn.

**** It didn’t actually take two people to write the book. It only took one. The other person’s role was deciding not to disagree with anything the other proposed to include.

***** No one needs to point out to me that anyone with a retirement account or who has played the stock market has benefited from financial institution's success in bringing money to the accounts of those who hold a global company's stock. But where is all of this money they were supposed to have accumulated? I would rather befriend a robin that has been indicted on transporting a stink bug with a tattoo of a gang sign on its buttocks across state lines than tolerate someone telling me I don't have enough information about the reality of globalization or the benefits to all people, maybe even the deceased, of unregulated free trade and virtually unregulated financial markets.

Middle Class Part 51:Taxation Chapter 5, Property Taxes, Health Care tied to Taxation and the Subtopic to Campaign Finance

2009-07-26T17:57:00.010-05:00

OPPRESSIVE EXPEDIENTS

“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or to sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue.” Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers No. 36, page 168)

And where are those men to be found? The first reaction of the democrat is to raise taxes and the first response of the conservative is to protect the rich from having their taxes raised and to borrow from subsequent generations money that has yet to be earned.

THE HEALTH OF TAXES AND THE DEATH OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE?

Health care and taxes: Why would I reintroduce the topic of health care when I am so thoroughly steeped in the topic of taxation? Because the conservatives are all about protecting everyone’s individual liberty, by which we feel more empowered because we get to keep more of our own money, wherein we are not taxed in order to pay more for other people’s health care. On that count, I can stipulate. In a Time magazine Briefing snippet, unrelated to the topic of health care, I read that if the earnings cap is eliminated, which is apparently something that Obama was for, and may still be, the richest people in the country, those making more than $1 million a year, would be paying an extra $55,676 a year. I can sum up how I feel about that in two words- unfair. (Note, that was one word- I reserve the right to call in on that one word for use later and may also demand that a thousand of that word's closest friends be included). If I admit, and can get a liberal to admit, that asking anyone to pay more for health insurance is unfair, and have an unneeded kidney transplant, will the conservatives just shut the hell up without my desiring them to get a prosthetic conscience? Admissions aside, if I sign a letter of intent to eat salmonella infected zorilla stew for the rest of my days, will conservatives please address another talk radio topic other than the health care boondoggle? (This is pure speculation, but a liberal president, like Obama may seek to take from the rich to provide health care to the presently uninsured, and may consider eliminating the earnings cap- I mention that only because I imagine some might wonder what this paragraph has to do with health care.)

Televised funerals: We televised a pop idol’s funeral in July and will probably have televised bug funerals before I figure out how to end this blog saga. No wonder we spend more than $2 trillion annually on health care- (16% of our GDP), our way of coping with the premature death of a pop music icon is to charge admission to a funeral while a bankrupted state (California) asks for taxpayer donations to defray the costs of the event. When I asked (in part 45* and part 48- in a paragraph simply titled- The plan) what was the government’s plan, I never thought I would find out so soon- during the national debate on health care legislation.**

Health care tax: From an Associated Press article- “Obama Leaves Door Open to New Tax on Health Benefits, June 24, 2009- “President Obama left the door open to a new tax on health care benefits Wednesday, and officials said top lawmakers and the White House were seeking $150 billion in concessions from the nation’s hospitals as they sought support for legislation struggling to emerge in Congress.” I like how the legislation is described in the same way as a premature cuscus, whose father will have a Napoleon complex on its behalf, would be described if it entered the world from the womb of a yellow lab (who, by the way, is no member of the blue dog coalition). I could quote three pages worth of articles concerning health care legislation (so I'll do it in four, also being mindful of the 30 some paragraphs I wrote in part 33), ridiculing each side (republican and democrat) for their inclusions and omissions in a proposed health care bill, talk about the aggregate demand,*** especially from the public, for a revolutionary health care bill (in that it will make it more affordable) and mock the unions for wanting to get an employer tax exclusion, but to put it bluntly, I’m running out of marginally entertaining animal maladies.

Health care solution: I don’t know every particular in all of the health care proposals floating in the devious minds of egomaniacal politicians attempting to birth a workable solution to our health care problem. What I do know is this:**** most republicans seem to want no part of a government-run insurance plan and the democrats don’t want to just allow private insurance companies to continue on the present path of interpreted excessive health care charges, or so they say. The best bill is probably going to include a way for the public to have the choice between a single payer or universal health care run by the government or the existing system. There will doubtless be modifications to the existing system, and changes to the perfect bill, but the better bill will include a combination of those two options. I’m about as sure of this as I am about the investment opportunities surrounding the bacon-scented candle. It is possible that democrats, seeing as they are the party in power and stand to gain millions more in campaign dollars (see below) would seek to stifle a semi-reasonable bill or enact a weak one that does include a public option so that simply passing a bill that provides taxpayers the opportunity the choice of their own downfall, will silence those who critcize the current health care system. Or is that just paranoia? Again, the fine print must be read, we must actually be given a real choice and not a choice of nightmares, in order to determine which openly competing option is the better of the two.

Liberal conservatism: One question I have after watching a debate between a conservative and liberal about various versions of health care bill provisions . . . the conservative feared a government run health care program's costliness. He wanted no part of the public being given a choice between the present system and the government's version. I had to wonder why. Why would conservatives be so against competition? Conservatives simply adore the lawlessness of the free market and seem physically ill any time someone mentions the word- regulations. Wouldn't a bill which provided the public an option between the present version, run by private health insurance conglomerates and what they believe will be a failed federal government version the very essence of free market competition? If the government's universal health care version is to be proven inadequate, more expensive and replete with beuracracy, (much like the present option mind you) shouldn't we find out once given the choice? In their conservatism, should they avoid being called hypocrites, wouldn't it be best if they were more liberal and then proceed to milk the public of even more of the wages the present health care system ought to let us keep? Conservatives will consistently rail against a government for limiting their freedom to choose how to spend their money, but when they may perhaps be offered a choice between getting screwed by something they are familiar with or something they have never been screwed by before, apparently the devil they know is preferable. Fortunately, we know all of the devils and cannot keep ourselves from getting screwed- (see the all too familiar, at least where politics is concerned, 5-legged whore metaphor I use below.)

Types of payments: From a June 28, 2009 Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial, OP2- “Payment is Key in Health Care Reform.” Most people do tend to get caught up in who those with ailments or procedures are going to have to pay- private insurers or the federal government run health care system. It is hard to argue with the observations: “The Democrats’ main proposals boil down to putting more people into a wasteful, expensive system—without fixing what makes it expensive and wasteful. Talk of a tax to pay for expanded access is premature. Costs would continue to soar. Any new tax would have to be raised again and again to cover them.” This is particularly problematic if those employees who were members of unions were exempt from any such tax, as has been discussed. I don't care if I have to pay a chamois with rickets for my health care, just as long as the price goes down and those, such as pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and health insurance companies are made to pay for their greed. Something, I might remind someone like Mr. George Will, has rarely happened when the prospective transgressor is the health care industry. (See part 49 and a few paragraphs below.)

Health care supply and demand: The editorial continues: “The issue that needs to be front and center is reimbursement: how the government and insurers pay providers for patient care. The problem is the fee-for-service system, which pays doctors per procedure provided.” Someone that may or may not be qualified thinks that approach “encourages providers not to offer as much care as needed, but to offer as much care as possible . . . Up to 50 percent of health care is driven by supply, not demand.” Until we get some other things under control, the editorial hints- such as a “new technology infrastructure” to “gather data linking providers’ costs to outcome”, “care coordination”, “community wellness programs” who provides the health care is a secondary concern. I would add, reducing redundant procedures, conflicting prognoses, bureaucratic red tape, kickbacks to physicians for prescribing certain pharmaceuticals, etc., are also problem areas. So, taking the patient’s wellness into consideration is important, and wondering about the necessity of service is just as important as who gets to fund that service and how, or if, taxes should be raised to do so.

“Expanding a Broken System?”: is the title of a recent health care reform profile article written by Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant, which appeared in the July 19, 2009 edition (OP1 & OP4). She profiles an expert in the ways and means of health care distribution whose major point is that “ ‘If you expand health insurance without addressing the system itself, you are financing an even worse system than what you set out to correct.’ ” His resolution to our hotly debated issue is to reward those who perform the best, Sturdevant’s summary of her expert’s ideas amounts to this- “Reward doctors for improving the health of their patients.” This won’t work for two reasons- only one of which is mentioned in the article. Her expert states that “ ‘Every cost item in this system is income for somebody else.’ 1) Those who receive all those fees for unnecessary services won’t easily let them go.” 2) Barely anyone in the country, from teachers, to contractors, to actors, to ballplayers, to politicians (especially those that are mayors of towns in New Jersey), to Ron Jeremy, even ptarmigan bail-bondsmen who are considered to be exceptional at faking anaphylaxis, are not paid based on how effectively they perform. Why would a health care professional be saddled with more far-reaching expectations?

The reality: Campaign dollars will cease to flow to the politicians who back a bill that leaves doctors, pharmaceutical companies or insurance providers, among others, to find revenue someplace else. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this a few times. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and his ignorant minions would have you believe that the liberals just want to raise taxes on the rich for no good reason and I’ve heard them whine so frequently on talk radio the past month that I am considering employing a leech that suffers from counterintuitive thoughts to suck the blood out of anything in my eardrum which might assist me in hearing. I would rather have the state find me a job wrangling quadriplegic bison, with my success determined by the number I could guide into a corral and my reward being the deafness that would originate from the leech placed into my eardrum than not complain about how pivotal solving the campaign finance situation is.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE TIED TO THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY OR FROTTEURISM AND LOBBYISTS

"Legislating Under the Influence": . . . is an in depth analysis about money's affect on politics, particularly where the issue of health care insurance is concerned. The article was written by Josh Zaharoff, Common Cause's deputy program director. The full text is available at www.commoncause.org/healthcare2009. Surely someone at the EIB (Excellence In Broadcasting) radio network could subjectively pick holes in everything contained within. But a conservative would refute the pain they caused a dove with the bird flu while commanding, at gunpoint, that the bird catheterize itself, though it was videotaped, with 1,500 witnesses. You could consider that I am a lobbyist. I have given about $100 to Common Cause over the past 18 months in order to have them attempt to secure, primarily, some form of financially fair elections. At this point, not only is the health care reform bill being hotly contested in congressional halls and town halls all over the country with some very over protective democratic wetbacks and some very vocal republican sourpusses, but another bill, far more important, is somewhere on congressional desks or in congressional briefcases, (if there is room for it, the health care bill is over 1200 pages). This bill would simplify the passage and debate on both the health care bill and the energy bill. The name of this bill is "The Fair Elections Now Act".

Fair elections now I: The bills, there are multiple (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) in my opinion, do not go far enough. H.R. 1826, Section 101 reads like this-
"(a) Undermining of Democracy by Campaign Contributions From Private Sources- The House of Representatives finds and declares that the current system of privately financed campaigns for election to the House of Representatives has the capacity, and is often perceived by the public, to undermine democracy in the United States by . . ." The tenor of much of the bill concerns the same, and the subclauses which fall under (a) above are worth quoting.

"(1) creating a culture that fosters actual or perceived conflicts of interest, by encouraging Members of the House to accept large campaign contributions from private interests that are directly affected by Federal legislation;
"(2) diminishing or appearing to diminish Members’ accountability to constituents by compelling legislators to be accountable to the major contributors who finance their election campaigns;
"(3) undermining the meaning of the right to vote by allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process;
"(4) imposing large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory distortions caused by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors;
"(5) making it difficult for some qualified candidates to mount competitive House election campaigns;
"(6) disadvantaging challengers and discouraging competitive elections, because large campaign contributors tend to donate their money to incumbent Members, thus causing House elections to be less competitive; and
"(7) burdening incumbents with a preoccupation with fundraising and thus decreasing the time available to carry out their public responsibilities."

Fair elections II: Shouldn't fairness be the primary reason to enact a law such as this in order to protect the taxpayers from the moneyed interests of lobbyists for corporations, including, but not restricted to health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and HMOs and health professionals? The bill even takes into consideration the start date of campaigning for election, so perhaps we wouldn't have any more two year long campaigns; of course, the H.R. 1826 bill seems to focus on the house of representatives. Unfortunately, after the democrats and republicans get done ignoring it, spending so much time bitching about what should and shouldn't be included in any of the various health care reform bill without a bullshit recall notice being mailed to our representatives by the taxpayer, the Fair Elections bill will look like a bald, five-legged whore with muscular dystrophy waiting on the next watered down insemination from a strung out politician who was just given $5,000 by the pharmaceutical company of their choice to roadblock any meaningful prescription drug provision, which, to conclude the metaphor, will force the bill/whore to close most of her legs.

Back to "Legislating Under the Influence": For justification of a fair elections bill, or ten, making the rounds in Washington, we need look no further than the microcosm of the health care reform debate (again, if you can call a 1,200 page bill that has almost insighted a civil war between the republicans and democrats) a microcsm of anything. In Zaharoff's electronic pamphlet, he writes- "A recent poll found that 60 percent of voters believe Congress puts the interests of campaign contributors over constituents, and 79 percent are worried that dependence on large campaign contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today." (Zaharoff p. 1) (Note: I would prefer that the two parties agree on some kind of national polling agency, so that they can both discontinue their questioning of the voracity of any poll numbers that don't back up their assertions. Breathe easy, we could outsource this agency to India or China so that we could trust the numbers and give even more jobs to workers overseas. Pretty soon, rich CEOs will be able to outsource their own bowel movements.)

Health industry campaign contributions: "health insurance, pharmaceuticals and health products, hospitals and HMOs, and health professionals--have contributed about $373 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress since 2000." (Zaharoff, p.2) Most of the money goes to people on health care-related committees or subcommittees, those in congress who are more likely to be swayed on particular votes- "Since 2000, the House members sitting on health committees have raised twice as much money from the health industry per election cycle as non-committee members (an average of 171,000 compared to 87,000.". More money goes to the party in political power, to which the health care industry shows no allegiance- in 2000, "Republicans on health-related committees received more than double what Democrats received (68 percent to 32 percent) from the health industries." In 2008, those percentages were well on their way to completely flipping. No wonder it is so imperative that one party wins over the other, the candidates know how much they can get from just the health care industry alone in order to help them stay in power and to keep getting more and more campaign finance help. I imagine one can get so side-tracked in campaigning for more money, and spending it on attack ads, and visits to all of their congressional districts in the course of 18 months that they can forget about actually representing the people who also had a hand in electing them.

This one is too big a number to hide in one of my traditionally long paragraphs- "The major health interests have spent an average of $1.4 million per day to lobby Congress so far this year and are on track to spend more than half a billion dollars by the end [sic] 2009." (Zaharoff p. 3) $1.4 MILLION A DAY! "That comes out to about $2,600 per day per member of the House and Senate." (Zaharoff, p. 3) Unfortunately, "The price tag for this effort pales in comparison the impact that meaningful health care reform would have on their [the health care industry's] bottom line." (Zaharoff, p. 7)

By the numbers: Zaharoff's report lists campaign contributions from the health care industry by party and per member of congress who serve on the five committees with jurisdiction over health care. There are tables showing how much members have received per year, and per industry. "Recent polling shows tat 76 percent of the American people want the ability to choose a public health insurance option." (Zaharoff, p. 5) Again, this poll probably takes into consideration just the epitome of what the taxpayer hopes is a logical, well-intentioned version of a public option, without the political red-tape, and one which solves most of the problems caused by the present private insurer's method, without creating new ones. That is not possible with 20 members of the senate receiving more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry since 2000, from interests, it cannot be denied, are opposed to reform. Besides, and this in no way should distract any of my negative readers, but how do we really know that all of that money is used for campaigns? Mightn't a few thousand dollars be misplaced and spent on home renovations, a new boat, office carpeting, a night out with one's mistress who is either a golden-headed lemur or Argentinian woman (with apologies to South Carolina governor Sanford), a trip to Cancun, a funnel so that accepted monies could be directed to the foundation or charity of their choice (ala Orrin Hatch of Utah), a framed, gold-embossed, picture of whichever senator comes to mind with the devil, signed-by-the-dark lord of the underground himself? Have I mentioned how like, taking and spending a largely unregulated, several million dollars in campaign finance donations is like Brewster's Millions? Oh yes, in part 39 . . . how could I forget.

By the numbers II: Senator Pat Roberts, a republican from Kansas, "a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee since 2002, had never raised more than $100,000 from the health industries in a previous cycle. In 2007, he took a seat on the Senate Finance Committee and its Health Subcomittee, and in the 2007-08 cycle alone he raised over $710,000 from health industries." (Zaharoff, p. 9) Party affiliation doesn't matter, as Zaharoff has indicated. However, as I've indicated, more democrats these days, given the majorities in the house and senate, are raking in campaign finance donations, especially if they are a member of a health industries-related committee. I felt I needed to pacify any republican by pointing that out, before they whined about the present campaign finance allocation disparity.

Frotteurism: Who knew political frotteurism could be this unexhilirating. Candidates take money to stay on top. They hold dinners to fund-raise and most assuredly neglect the reading of 1,200 page bills specifically and those whom they are elected to represent generally. Who can debate that? Corporations and industries and their lobbyists would contribute $5 million to the political candidate's war chests for one reason, they stand assured of making $6 million in return on that investment, otherwise, why would they do it. There is no greater truth in politics than that. Where might these corporations come by such money? Either from their pleasure of doing business with us, our payment for services they have been allowed to overcharge us for, by politicians whom they subsidize (a good reason to stifle any hint of health care reform, to use one example) or because of tax breaks that are given to businesses, industries and corporations, which ensures that the middle class (no longer protected from any possibility of a tax increase in recent weeks judging by the comments of Obama or Obama administation officials) will suffer even further than they do now and will suffer even more in the future. In short, if you solve the mess that is campaign finance, current issues like health care and energy policy and future fights between the two major political parties like entitlements (social security, welfare) and the forthcoming social agenda items will be lessened in scope 1000 fold.

OUR OWN MONEY AGAINST US

Tax dependence: A 501(c)(3)***** company has the stated objective that reads like this- “The mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty among America’s state legislators.” Some interesting facts about ALEC:

1) “ALEC’s . . . core members include more than twenty-four hundred state legislators, which amounts to about a third of all of our state reps.” (Dobbs, Independents Day, page 118)

2) ALEC “has more than three hundred corporate and private foundation members . . . these companies and lobbying groups provide close to 95 percent of ALEC’s financing.” (Dobbs, Independents Day, page 119)

3) “ ‘In 2004 alone 1,108 ALEC model bills were introduced and 178 were enacted into law.’ ” I am quoting from Dobbs again, page 120 of Independents Day, who is quoting from the ALEC website. These people are more proud of the fleecing they are giving to the American people, not even in the name of duty, than a sheep would be if it could sheer itself while climaxing, and never notice how they have involved their anterior cingulated cortex (which is the part of the brain where people suffering through a moral dilemma have been shown to have increased activity), which in turn signals the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that is to provide executive control. Could happen. Some animals are crazy.

4) “The relationship between members has been referred to by critics as ‘pay to play,’ indicating that corporate America ponies up the dollars in order to work, and play, with our elected officials in a convenient and mutually beneficial environment. For years the tobacco industry has been a significant benefactor to ALEC’s mission, contributing more than two hundred thousand dollars annually and paying for the organization’s legal bills. It, like other members, sponsors parties, retreats, and other junkets for state legislators who are key to getting legislation passed.” Anyone remember when legislators were disgusted by AIG and other members of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program who accepted money, bought luxury jets and took expensive vacations with the money they were given? This is hypocrisy at work- a decent number of those politicians are ALEC members, but who would never bring up the scoundrel nature of their own affiliations.

5) It costs only $5,000 to become a member, but memberships “are offered either to legislators or to private-sector organizations.”

6) Worst of all- “Not only do organizations like . . . ALEC work specifically for the benefit of corporate America and special interests, they’re taking money out of your pocket. Donors to these organizations get a write-off; they don’t have to pay taxes on their donations. But the 501(c)(3) [such as ALEC, there are others] themselves don’t have to pay taxes either, putting them in a category with churches. Since any think tank worth its salt brings in millions of dollars a year, that’s a lot of money that’s not getting taxed. It’s a double shot to the American people: The money is effectively used against us, and its tax-free status means that the shortfall is probably going to have to come out of our pockets at tax time.”

If anything I have written to date should come appended to an image of Edvard Munch’s famous “The Scream” image it is this. So, when a guy, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, that does not seem to fit the description outlined by Hamilton in the paragraph I quote from which heads this post, says “I need your help” asking voters to understand his decision to raise taxes because of a $15 billion budget shortfall, ask why someone with the power to rat out those organizations that have corrupted the moral authority and that could attempt to stop them from using our tax money, we should treat him like a feral pygmy swan who has mated with a large fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton (a shark) to form some super species of death that can fly hundreds of feet in the air and dive to a depth of a thousand feet below sea level. What kind of vampire-infested country are we living in? And don't even tell me you've never been aware of the type of creature I reference in the last, but one, sentence in this paragraph- you've certainly voted for one now and again.

Anti-trust, to be sure: I long ago began to feel toward politics how I’ve felt about the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) college bowl game setup. Arlen Spector is the lone senator looking into anti-trust violations in college football. One of the prime defenses of those backing the BCS format in the anti-trust hearings is that their attorneys have ensured that anti-trust laws are being adhered to. Anyone who uses attorneys to defend the athletic viability of a championship and not allow the most qualified teams to play each other in some kind of playoff system,****** is more untrustworthy than a jackal that is a compulsive liar on its first day of fasting for Ramadan trapped inside of a cage that also houses a Jewish peccary taunting the jackal for its religious beliefs.

GAO 1: Thankfully we have something called the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to take care of issues like this while most of us are unaware of how provable and longstanding are the above types of shameless grandstanding and immoral behaviors. The GAO website offers this kind of reassurance: “The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm******* of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.”

GAO 2: Further- “The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes.” There isn’t the slightest chance we need an empowered taxpayer-backed non-governmental watchdog which could replace the GAO, is there? Congress proposes candidates to be the head of the GAO. I could be a vampire, but as long as I keep my dog walked and fed he will serve me well.

GAO3: One of the duties of the GAO is to “advise Congress and the heads of executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and responsive.” Have you advised congress of anything they could do to improve lately? When I mentioned in part 9 about government waste and have all along insisted that no one’s taxes (not even the rich) should be raised to pay for the blunders of government in mismanaging our collective account, things like ALEC are those which I had in mind (see #6 directly above). When I talk about the income gap between the rich and middle class, the things that could be prevented as the causes of this are in the hands of agencies like the GAO, and they are failing us miserably.

Tax info: So, when you read just the heading of an article less than a week out from last fall’s presidential election (from October 31, 2008) that “Neither Candidate Addresses Wealth Gap” by David Lightman, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 3A, with quotations that read like this: “ ‘Taxes are not going to solve the problem,’ . . . ‘Nobody’s going to stand for the kind of confiscatory taxes you would need.’ ” And that is why I am not in favor of simply raising anyone’s taxes. McCain’s approach, the article relates, would allow “the rich to keep more of their income on the theory they’ll invest and spend, thereby creating more jobs and wealth.” No wonder this guy lost- the jobs that rich people create are going overseas, because employing overseas workers allows them to keep even more of their money. The only thing that rich people are interested in investing in is the odds that the Constitution won’t be amended to actually protect the people in the most dire need of protection- U.S. workers who will lose their jobs to overseas workers. (Note: I’m pretty sure that is why the Constitution was adopted to begin with, at least on the surface. In reality, it appears that it was adopted to protect agencies like ALEC.) The article I mention above also boasts this line, which is what I’ve been writing about since I started this bloga- “While Americans at all income levels saw their wealth increase during the 1990s, the top 1 percent’s income exploded. Since George W. Bush became president, their share kept growing while everyone else’s income barely rose.” And I wouldn't even complain about that if it weren't so hard to afford a family and seen that the next few generations of middle class wage-earners will have an even worse time- funding retirement, taking a vacation, getting their children a post-secondary education, affording health care . . .

Tax rate history: The article (by Lightman) also reminds everyone that Obama wanted to “return the two top income-tax rates to pre-2001 levels in 2011—the same rates as during the Clinton era, which saw the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. That would mean a top income-tax rate of 39.6 percent, far below the 70 percent top rate that existed until 1981, or even the 50 percent top rate of 1982-1986—not to mention the top rates of more than 90 percent that prevailed from the end of World War II until 1963.” Some of those percentages are ridiculous, why would the rich even work at all if 90% of the money they earned was taken from them by a government that allows agencies like ALEC to exist in their protected forms. Today, the top 10% pay almost 66% of the Federal Personal Income Tax, a tax rate progressivity that would be undeniably frustrating. If I were in the top 10%, despite my overall material advantage, I would despise any lawmaker that wanted to take even more of my money. We are inundated with important tax rate information- “Millions of families . . . have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and/or the Child Tax Credit (CTC).” (Source: Joint Economic Committee Research Report from May 2006.) Balancing the facts behind government waste, Welfare fraud and abuse specifically, the government dole generally, I would rather see the richest 10% and the richest 50% (the middle class) thrive after we get a program for reducing wasteful federal and state spending in place. People have earned their income and have a right to keep it.******** And I don't mean to forsake the poor, who we also have a duty to protect, so long as they aren't abusing this aid, which it seems, plenty of them are doing and are allowed to do, by the government- (which I've mentioned since at least part 6 and included in part 27 on the subtopic of immigration and under its own heading in part 32).

Bankruptcy via taxes I: The news from the world of Double Income No Kids is this- “The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 tightened bankruptcy laws to weed out chronic problems of fraud and abuse—and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the bankruptcy system.” Why congress can’t pass a law which restores public confidence in the adoption, debate and passage of federal legislation generally would have been an obvious and necessary precursor to the specific bankruptcy legislation. And to be honest, despite how important it was to restore the public confidence in the bankruptcy system, it might have been a tad more important for the credit card companies and health insurers—two of the biggest reasons for the legislation in the first place. Some, like the authors of the book “The Two Income Trap: Middle Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke,” argue that personal bankruptcies will again rise due to “rising health care costs and higher mortgage payments for increasingly expensive homes.”

Bankruptcy via taxes II: Todd Zywicki, in his article, “The Two Income Tax Trap” August 17, 2007 has found another reason, he writes: “they have overlooked the most important contributor to the purported household budget crunch—taxes.”

Alert- extensive derivative and quoted material in order to show how each is only half right (see, because that is what I do)-

The authors of the book (a Harvard law school professor and her daughter) “compare two middle-class families: an average family in the 1970s versus the 2000s (all dollar values are inflation-adjusted). The typical 1970s family is headed by a working father and a stay-at-home mother with two children . . . the typical 2000s family has two working parents . . .”

70s family, working father 2000s family, dual income

Figures for the family of the 2000s are in [ ]

Income- $38,700 [$67,800]

Mortgage- $5,310 [$9,000]

Car- $5,140 [$8,000]

Health Ins. $1,030 [$1,650]

Tax rate- 24% [33%]

Day care- $0 [$9,670]

Net result-$17,834 (about $1,500 a month) [$17,045 (less than the earlier generation)]

Three things to keep in mind- 1) neither family is netting over $17 grand after taxes. By the words "net result" they mean that is what is left after the listed expenses have been accounted for. Whatever is left in discretionary income (the net result) must go toward food, clothing, savings and to fund a retirement, that will require more money than it did for a man and woman who retired 30 years earlier.

2) As Zywicki points out “The authors present no explanation for why they present only the tax data in their two examples as percentages instead of dollars. Nor do they ever present the actual dollar value for taxes anywhere in the book.” Zywicki does- “for the typical 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income is $22,374. Although income only rose 75%, and expenditures for the mortgage, car and health insurance rose by even less than that, the tax bill increased by $13,086—a whopping 140% increase.”

And 3) “The percentage of family income dedicated to health insurance, mortgage and automobiles actually declined between the two periods.” I would point out that the child care costs didn’t and the cost of health insurance, by itself, adjusted for inflation, didn’t. Also, the advent of the home computer with an internet that can drive some learning behaviors (i.e. the necessity of having a patch to a wealth of educational games and learning opportunities has become a necessary cost- we pay $40 a month for high speed internet). Each viewpoint is incomplete. Zywicki also writes that the “ ‘secondary earner bias’ ” could be eliminated********* so that all of the wifes’ income needn’t be taxed at the “much higher marginal tax rate” which in itself is counterproductive, in many cases, of even having a second income, balanced against the identified child care costs not often associated with incomes from 30 years ago. The child tax credit available on modern tax returns is in no way comparable to how much the average couple pays in child care- at least not for income earners in the top 50%. One other note- unless the vicious cycle of less education = less average lifetime earnings is to miraculously cease, both the authors of the book and Zywicki, the author of the article which refutes the figures found in the book, would do well to factor in postsecondary college tuition costs, the costs of home ownership, and other necessary costs, such as the cost of caring for a family member that has contracted a serious illness, a medical cost which I am sure has not been factored into the equation above and which, coincidentally, is a major reason for individual bankruptcy filings********** in the first place, and a major knock against the 2005 bankruptcy legislation with which I began this particular harangue. Oh my, I fear I’ve become even more high maintenance than a limpet with a hyphenated name prior to its betrothal to a kittiwake, when I have stayed on topic than when I digress.

PROPERTY TAX

Proper tax: I once incorrigibly demanded my wife acknowledge that I was at least as offensive accidentally as I was on purpose. That has absolutely nothing to do with property tax- I just wanted to admit that. The logic behind the property tax is about as open and shut a case as one is likely to find, and if one’s property tax goes up in times of prosperity, it ought to go down in times of trouble like any other commodity, for if we've learned nothing, we learned that a house is no longer an investment which we might use to help in financing our old age, but a piece of property we must gain and lose without sentimentality; the state or locality that purposely collects against our domicile’s worth, sharing in our good fortune should not also indifferently avoid lowering that tax. In the article “Tax Bill Appeals Take Rising Toll on Government,” Jack Healy, New York Times, July 4, 2009, Healy writes- “Homeowners across the country are challenging their property tax bills in droves as the values of their homes drop, threatening local governments with another big drain on their budgets.” In the article are these pieces of information:

1) 1) “Officials in some states say their property tax revenue is falling for the first time since World War II.”

2) 2) “The pain at the state level is trickling down to county and local governments. To compensate, about 10 percent of large counties are raising the tax rates associated with home values to minimize the revenue loss.” I can guarantee that rate will, along with everything else I've addressed in the last 2+ years, hurt the middle class sooner than it hurts anyone else.

3) 3) “Property taxes are meted out by a disparate patchwork of cities, towns, counties, and school and fire districts, all with their own rules. Because tax formulas vary widely county to county, not every decrease in assessed values automatically lowers a household’s property taxes.” Why, because that's just how the government roles.

4) 4) “Some towns have hired extra employees to sift through the paperwork.” (I wonder when that work will be outsourced overseas.)

5) 5) “Entire subdivisions are pushing for new tax assessments, as are companies that own office towers, industrial parks and shopping malls.”

6) 6) One woman’s home was assessed a value of $1.8 million but is languishing on the market with an asking price of $1.3 million. Her taxes are increasing to $53,000 a year . . . [she says] ‘If the house is not worth what I bought it for, why am I paying the same amount in taxes?’ ” The government probably has a couple of words for you- rhetorical question.

7) 7) People are trying to save any money they can in this economy. In St. Lucie, Florida, “property tax revenue is expected to fall 20 percent, and tax appeals are 10 times as high as they are normally.”

8) 8) Two conclusions, 1) federal, state and local governments should be forced to reduce spending on government waste- this would increase government revenues. We wouldn’t need to hear about budget shortfalls, each party blaming the other for misspending tax money, each accusing the other of sabotaging (republicans) or complicating (democrats) health care, or one constantly shrieking or caterwauling how offensive are the words and actions and votes of the other, while BOTH continue to infringe on the individual liberty of the middle class, all while the reality of the subterfuge of groups like ALEC sponsoring corporations is never acknowledged by the beneficiaries 2) if our property taxes rise in relation to the perceived value of our homes, they should, and must, fall relative to the real and actualized values of our homes. We know the value by the old adage- something is only worth what you can get for it; and if we can't get as much for it, we shouldn't have to give the municipality, county or state as much, in property taxes, as they desire.

__________________________

* In the paragraph- GDP in the global economy and in the second and fifth footnotes in that number,

** Psst, I haven’t really figured anything out concerning the government’s plan as far as GDP (Gross Domestic Product) spending is concerned- you know, over 9% unemployment, big technology allowed to shift jobs overseas, which will impact domestic consumer spending and in turn reduce the amount of the GDP comprised of consumer spending. Note two things- 1) immediately above I included the word domestic consumer spending. We’ve fallen in love with the global economy for many reasons, not the least of which is pushing American products to consumers half way around the world- after all, no one here is buying them. Thing is, I don’t what Americans even make anymore. I think I saw a real white-tailed deer with the words “Made in India” tattooed on its ass as it bounded across the highway on my way back from the in-laws cabin over the 4th of July weekend. And 2) if congress and the president can actually agree on a health care bill which in the long run reduces medical costs (which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16% of GDP, what will Americans and the federal government do to make up these losses? What else is there for the government to do besides raise taxes?

*** I know this is an economic term credited to John Maynard Keynes that concerns the amount of goods and services available for purchase at all pricing levels, which takes into consideration static inventory levels and figures in the calculations of the Gross Domestic Product with curves, algorithms and mathematical equations that include government spending, net exports, interest rates and disposable income, among other things. In short, if health care keeps rising at a rate that annually surpasses that of cost of living increases (when the middle class is expected to pay for gas, college tuition, fund for retirement and fix the furnace, etc.) they cannot afford to be taxed for health benefits or otherwise see their premiums rise substantially each year. Any income the middle class accumulates will be disposed of in these areas and considering the article above about the supply and demand of health care, Keynesian economic terms seem to be appropriately co-mingled with issues like taxation as it relates to health care.

**** How do I know this- “Many Democrats insist on having an option for government-run insurance in the legislation so consumers can have a choice other than a plan from private insurers. Republicans are vehemently opposed, and compromise efforts have centered on a proposal for a nonprofit co-operative that would be initially funded by the federal government.”

***** It claims tax exempt status for its charitable designation which are supposed to be prohibited from drafting or influencing legislation.

****** Because some of those teams are from non-power conferences and would conceivably not bring the corporations funding the bowl games as much revenue as some traditional powerhouses who that season underperformed according to their boosters, fans and the media, but because they went 91-11 and won 7 bowl games in the decade of the 80s, they are selected to play in the bowl game. Ah, hell with it- just go look up BCS on Google.

******* This wouldn’t happen to be an “investigative arm” with an invisible hand would it? Don’t know what I’m talking about- Google Adam Smith and the invisible hand.

******** There are always caveats to statements like that. Combined- O.J. Simpson, Dionne Warwick and Sinbad owed the state of California $6.25 million. In fact, “The 250 top listed names owe California more than $249 million combined.” The article further relates that “ ‘Each year, California loses more than $6.5 billion in unpaid taxes.’ ” That is at least one reason that state is about to go bankrupt. The last paragraph contains this quote by the state controller- “ ‘Hopefully, this action [an attempt at shaming tax delinquent celebrities] will encourage these taxpayers to come forward, pay what they owe, and quickly help the Franchise Tax Board remove their names from the list.’ ” Mr. state controller- you are asking a man that went looking for his wife’s murderer on golf coarses across the country, and a comedian that wore zubas more famously than anyone in pop fashion history [and that wasn’t part of his act] to pay money because of a sense of shame? I don’t like your chances. (Source: “Celebs Among Calif.’s List of Worst Tax Debtors.” Reuters, October 17, 2007.) California would have a better chance slowing the gambling addiction of a gila monster by skywriting hieroglyphics across the cumulonimbus-laden skies of Darfur than it does of shaming a celebrity.

********* Hahahahahahahahaha . . . yeah, that is never going to happen- so we may as well just keep electing republicans and democrats to ensure that our well managed expectations are met.

********** I've heard a conservative echo-narcissist refute even this against overwhelming evidence. Why else would the personal bankruptcy laws be amended unless the government decided that people were abusing them? Surely the government did not amend the bankruptcy laws because they found them suitable.

Middle Class Part 50: Taxation Chapter 4, Hobgoblins of Consistency, Defending the Indpendents and: That Does Not Sound like a Socialist to Me

2009-06-27T14:29:00.005-05:00

Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of the most popular and transcendent philosophers of all time and is known for so many quotations it is hard to keep track of them all. One of his most basic is this- “Every hero becomes a bore at last.” And sometimes the future bore was mistaken for a hero by those with very short memories. See my comments about Joel Stein’s take on Independent parties below. No one is more of a bore as when they espouse a majority view with so little in the way of a compelling argument.

INDEPENDENT LEGACY

50 Posts: Who in their right mind would post 278,000 words on one topic over the span of two years, with 50 posts that virtually no one has read? Someone had to do it, and apparently all of the completely sane, and more qualified, crusaders were busy.

Retrospective inclusions: I haven’t quite made it through all of the copies of Time magazine a friend gave to me a few months ago, but I have seen at least one article on all of the subtopics I’ve covered to date, (from immigration, health care, energy policy, funding for retirement and campaign finance, etc.) for which, if there is any pertinent information, will be filtered into the various subtopics in the massive word document I keep of all of my posts that is a complete chronicle of my work on the topic of the middle class’ future struggle for economic and political relevance in the future. Only the Dead Sea Scrolls is a more highly-prized collection of spiritual history than is the document I have created- sure, and the mackerel is famous for its ability to give a pelican’s gullet a hickey while it writes its last will and testament.

On Time: One other topic I’ve covered has also been the political relevance of Independent party candidates, whose voices mix so incompletely, incoherently, and discordantly, that they may never be legitimized because they lack an overriding and consistent voice that can boil down the issues in a way that would inform the voter how urgently the right kind of change is needed and how they (the Independent candidate) would realistically affect this change. Curiously, this makes them no different than the two parties for which the citizens keep voting. In Time’s February 11, 2008 issue is a commentary by Peter Beinart called “The Bloomberg Delusion” (pg. 53) which dismisses New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s potential (at the time) candidacy for president as an Independent. No harm there, of the things I had read about Bloomberg, his decision not to run for president was not something over which I lost a great deal of sleep. The specifics of Beinart’s last paragraph were none too troubling, but the sentiment considered in a greater context certainly is, especially when coupled with Joel Stein's which I more thouroughly refute at the end of this number:

“More than 50 years ago, the historian Richard Hofstader compared third parties to bees. They inject a new perspective into the political mainstream, and then they die. If Michael Bloomberg runs for President, he’ll skip the first step.” Still, I wonder how much more of an impression the typical republican or democrat can make, as they inject nothing worth perceiving into the political mainstream and live forever. C’mon, you cannot tell me that there aren’t a hundred thousand electable* Richard Nixons or Bill Clintons running around. These guys never die, we just call them by another name.

Independent party commentary in this post . . . to be continued below

3 Things about me as a capitalist: I have had infrequent conversations with proponents of the free-market, who are only pro-capitalism indirectly- they value the rich for their money, never minding how it was acquired, with the assumption that the rich have always earned their money through wisdom and effort and the poor are so for a reason. I would tell them this if their free-market protectionism would abate long enough for me to go on a conciliatory attack and disprove their theory that I am a socialist: 1) The richest 1-5% should not be taxed if it is determined that the government is wasting a substantial amount of money that can, should and must be redirected toward more responsible spending** - that doesn’t sound like a socialist to me; 2) those running small businesses and earning between $150k-$300k are the epitome of capitalism, are trying to put their ideas into practice, have worked like animals to become successful and probably have a small number of employees on the payroll who count on their jobs, and should not have their taxes raised. These entrepreneurs should not be penalized for just starting to make a profit- that does not sound like a socialist to me. However, those without a payroll making that kind of money, and who are likely among the richest 1-5% of income earners, should see a tax increase if it is determined that the government is not wasting our tax money. 3) The poor should not simply derive any kind of economic benefit from the rich or middle class if it can be determined, by just as objective a set of intelligently empowered federal bean-counters that they are abusing the Welfare system (see part 32) and are protected by the government while they are so doing***- that does not sound like a socialist to me.

As Dobbs writes: “The establishment elites have raised so-called free trade to the level of a personal and societal belief system that is as ardently faith-based as any religion. How else to explain their refusal to recognize thirty-one consecutive years of U.S. trade deficits or a U.S. trade debt that is rising faster than our national debt? How else to explain their attacks on independent thinkers and empiricists who question their economics with facts, critics whom they look upon as heretics.” (pg. 207, Independents Day) How can you even argue with that? Those defending the free-market and free trade, well, there is a name for people like that as well, and it is much worse than the label- socialist to someone who has proven he is far from it. Free market proponents treat the lack of oversight in the areas of U.S. free trade policies and globalization as if it is the equivalent of a belt loop the federal government missed when it was trying to cinch up its pants- which is something the federal and state governments should have been forced to do decades ago.

Independents on taxes (tying together the three previous paragraphs): If an Independent’s view on taxation, never minding what it is on campaign finance, immigration, health care, education, global warming, government bailouts, the federal reserve or foreign policy, is not contained in the paragraph- 3 Things about me as a capitalist, then there is absolutely no reason to vote for them- which also includes the reasons to not vote for a republican who will not raise taxes on the rich (see part 49- the material on MN governor Pawlenty), nor for a democrat, as they would never think to punish the poor for abusing welfare programs that are crippling this country (see part 32). The barometer by which the voter can best gauge a political candidate is how they treat the citizens and corporations (too poorly or too well) who are armed with the responsibility of lining the government’s pockets, or dismissed of this responsibility.**** How the government spends the money derived from the taxpayer, is even somehow less important, and how they spend it, or misspend it (see part 9) is pretty important stuff- at least as important as a beaver with coxydia finding out that sexting can be safe if not performed while going 65 mph on the interstate, unless they do so with a boll weevil that has snacked on some bad cotton buds. I would never admit to allowing the government to spend it unwisely, and agree to eliminate my frequent and reasonable requests for more accountability, transparency, discontinue this bloga (i.e. blog saga) and some kind of independent federal bean counters, just so that we could be taxed less, but we do need to be taxed less first, which would in part, begin to subject government spending to greater and greater scrutiny.

Madison on redistribution: James Madison, writing for the National Gazette, a paper backed by Thomas Jefferson, called for laws to prevent “ ‘an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches’ [and wanted] ‘to reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.’ ” I don’t agree with this approach. It does not reward those who may have earned their rewards for the risks they have taken, while it allows those who have failed to labor, considering that they are able, to also benefit. Madison’s well chronicled concern for factions, which is at the economic heart of our country's political disagreement, is most adequately identified in these paragraphs, which appear in The Federalist #10:

“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority
of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

“There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controling its effects.” Since neither of those two options have seemed altogether likely, or possible, (since it would be a faction that would author that change), and the government having no recourse to mitigate the interests of private citizens (if there were someone would surely have informed their rivals that their viewpoint was Unconstitutional by now) we must deal with the consequences of natural human liberty of thought, which rarely brings fairness into account- whether the opinions of the extremely wealthy or the indigent are considered.

Income disparity: Quoting from a Justin Fox, Time magazine article (May 26, 2008, pgs. 36-41) that in an April 2008 Gallup poll, “68% of respondents said wealth ‘should be more evenly distributed’ ” while “51%, agreed that ‘heavy taxes on the rich’ were needed.” I wouldn’t fall into either of those categories. That does not sound like a socialist to me. I feel as if I should come up with a battery of instances, in Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck-ese" of explaining to conservatives what actually constitutes a redneck, excepting that I would substitute socialist for redneck. One example- if you can't remember the last time you had a boner at work or thought that the news headline "the death of the king of pop" was offensive to those who call it soda, you might be a socialist.

The Patriot Act (ala Biden): During last fall’s presidential election season, democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden made a tax pledge quite unlike that made by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Biden said, during one interview that: “We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” He then noted “that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: ‘It’s time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.’ ” Again, while I appreciate the sentiment, much like that above about mayor Bloomberg’s lack of presidential merit, I am not a proponent of that approach. The rich do not owe the middle class any money unless the latter are under the employ of the former; those do not seem like the words of a socialist to me.***** If Biden, and his like-minded senators, or those who are exactly the opposite, with desires for rewarding the rich with tax breaks and incentives, were patriotic, no class of citizen would be asked by their government to bear more of a burden than responsibility demands. I would assure Mr. Biden that American people of all classes are far more patriotic on average with less financial security assured to them than the average politician who ill considers some of their tax burden decisions in the federal legislature. Politicians and political pundits are amusing. The economy, credit crunch, the values of their homes plummeting, their jobs being stripped from them by workers overseas, the rising cost of health care, the infrastructure of the nation crumbling and taxpayers have to watch these people (politicians and pundits) with the audacity to appear on Meet the Press to discuss the vetting process of the newest supreme court nominee. How she will vote on the issue of abortion and whether she will be mindful of the obvious subtextual elements of a document (the Constitution) way past its prime, to the delight or horror of millions with a stake in her brilliance or fatuity****** are bizarre concerns compared to the havoc that a living document like the Constitution brings to our daily lives, too often unbeknownst to us. The ability of someone to look to the oracle of the Constitution and interpret the founder’s intentions is slightly more important than the starting pitcher guessing at how the home plate umpire will be interpreting the strike zone; and in the latter case, the umpire’s efficiency is formally judged. A sea anemone that just sits and waits for its prey to happen by, is treated like a whore by the clown fish and is consumed by the sea slug is less pathetic and still more independent than the Constitution; the latter gives life only to those whose imaginations are already dead. (Source of the quote above- “Biden Calls Paying Higher Taxes a Patriotic Act” Associated Press, September 18, 2008.)

Fair tax: It may be time to institute the Fair Tax, a consumptive tax, which is not to say one that has tuberculosis, but that rather taxes those who purchase goods and services, without compromising our immune system, so it is a tax of each according to his means. For the full details see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. From the book Affluenza (written by Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss- “people would be taxed on what they consume, at a rate rising from twenty percent (on annual spending under $40,000) to seventy percent (on annual spending over $500,000) . . . the idea is to tax those with the most serious cases of ‘luxury fever’ . . . at the highest rates, thus encouraging saving instead of spending.” Which brings one question to mind- how in the hell is the government going to enact that. Too many of a politician’s constituents make a lot of money from a middle class that is in debt from the interest rates on their credit card bills. If the citizen is saving their money, they cannot be spending it. Like the national id card, education spending, government waste, and health care, I think it would be best to institute a pilot project to prove to proponents and opponents alike that it either would or would not work. The biggest problem preventing a fair tax pilot project is determining which states would participate. The solution- amending the Constitution so that a state’s rights are subject to the collected people’s will. Tracing every proposed solution back to the question of Constitutional authority is more frustrating than playing competitive hide and seek with a prairie dog who has the keys to your bank account. A convicted murderer in Virginia once said that the governor had just lost his vote, claiming that the state’s execution methods, (lethal injection) were unconstitutional.

INCOME AND TAXES

“The (Impossible) American Dream”: is an article written by Robert J. Samuelson for Newsweek (November 28, 2007) in which the author writes- “we’re more prosperous than at any time in our history.” Some of us are and some of us would want the words “on average” included in that sentence, lest we lose track of the big picture. Samuelson also writes that “About two-thirds of today’s adults have incomes higher than their parents did”- but this trend is sure to be discontinued in this time of 1.5% raises; another thing missing from this particular sentence are these words- as measured against inflation- its omission is telling. What is the point of saying that someone is making $20 an hour if a loaf of bread costs 10 times what it did 30 years ago, or that a furnace is obsolete 10 years after its installation these days whereas those built in 1973 are still going strong? It is a good idea when you write an article about keeping things in perspective you actually keep things in focus. Samuelson concludes- “The possibility that their children will move down the economic ladder, in class position if not income, is one of the great anxieties that assault the vast middle class, even at its highest reaches. Mobility is a great thing, but it often comes at someone else’s expense.” Quite right, and it comes at everyone’s expense if the government decides to add or increase taxes in lieu of responsible spending. (See- http://www.newsweek.com/id/72618.)

Conservative assessment: Minnesota radio talk show host Jason Lewis wrote an article for the Minneapolis Star Tribune which appeared in September of 2007. In it he writes “ . . . since the Census Bureau figures don’t include the value of noncash government benefits, such as food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid or even the Earned Income Tax Credit, the data suggest a far wider gap in lifestyles between John Edwards and middle America than between poor and average households.” My point all along, no matter how convoluted it would be for me to break down his valid and invalid points about overall consumption of government outlays by the less fortunate compared against the rich, in terms of overall measureable income. The data actually suggest, such as below, that 75% of all income the last 7 years has gone to the richest 1%; referring to the average amount of redistributed tax credits or social service money handed to the poor is a waste of words, excepting if it is given to those abusing the system, and not all people receiving assistance are in that category.

Arguing about economic disparity between two combatants with facts in hand cannot be done if one of them is without empathy and objectivity and the other is without tolerance for those deficiencies. Republicans, particularly those who are preoccupied with reelection, are more stubbornly aggressive about a high-end income tax and state business taxes than a fossa, a cat-like animal that lives in Madagascar with the agility of a squirrel and the temperament of a wolverine, worries about the next infant dinner it hopes to have. Sometimes I get those two worries mixed up. But then again, conservatives confuse their paranoia for die hard protectionism and think it is their duty to keep us safe from a government that is just as dangerous when they are at the helm.

My assessment: There are liberal political pundits so jaded in their coverage that they may be more worried about a republican governor’s use of unallotment in the first year of a biennium than of our $4.1 billion trade deficit with Mexico, a nation of families that might feed their children sand for breakfast. Liberals are probably more worried about saving a species of albatross who enjoy auto-erotic asphyxiation, where they tie themselves around each other’s necks, than about someone whose tax deductions include an attempt to claim a hot tub with mood lighting as a business expense. One cover of Time magazine just before the 2008 presidential election, featured an electronic voting machine, with the cover title- “7 Things that Could Go Wrong on Election Day”. Two things- I think they stopped at 7, because they had to fit in some exclusive with Obama. Time magazine running with a story that refers to access to Obama as an exclusive is like me saying that robins are on the endangered species list. I fished that copy of Time out of the recycling bin for a joke about electing a republican or democrat as two of the seven things that could go wrong on election day. I wanted to refer to this cover as the first in 2008 that actually did not have Obama on the cover. Shockingly predictable, when I peered into the recycling bin, Obama’s face appears in the top right corner. The sun rising is less expected at this point. (Note: unallotment is where if a forecasted deficit remains the governor can drain reserves, then cut appropriations.)

Income: In reading yet another old issue of Time magazine I discovered this column: “How the Next President Should Fix the Economy” Justin Fox, May 26, 2008, (pgs. 36-41), same as above. Fox separates into categories the major concerns of the next president, and the reason for our current predicament. Two categories that appear in succession within the article stick out to me. Fox writes (under the heading “Income”) “75% of all income gains from 2002 to ’06 went to the top 1%--households making more than $382,600 a year.” Jesus, how much is enough for you people really? Further, Fox writes- “The gap between high and low earners has been growing since the late 1970s, and until recently, economists attributed virtually all of it to technological and demographic changes that increased the premium paid to those with advanced skills and education . . . And you certainly wouldn’t want to discourage people from getting an education by heavily taxing the rewards for it.” I would not, (that does not sound like a socialist to me) but neither do I want the cost of a college education to financially extend a middle class student so that they finally are done paying for it when their mid-life crisis is upon them. Those who protect the free market from the onslaught of regulations believe that the market corrects itself- that additional competitors will avoid jumping into a certain market if there is not enough profit for them to risk investing money to obtain it; the government is apparently accepting of the proposition that only the richest 5% of the country can afford a college degree and take a similar approach to justifying it- that those who would attend college are not likely to recoup the financial investment, in lifetime earnings, they would have to make. Perhaps the government is pleased that American workers are replaced by foreign ones. Is there any way to outsource presidential or legislative work, or work normally done by liberal or conservative ideologues?

Tax cuts: Fox writes- “Many economists now believe at least two other factors have contributed to the growth in inequality: [aside from education which was the factor I addressed above] globalization and Reagan’s big cuts in taxes on the rich. Even as it rewards those at the top of their fields worldwide with spectacular paydays, globalization holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas . . . Public opinion has reacted to this with increasing distrust of free trade.” Ya think? (Note: I’ve checked out a book on globalization and will address that more specifically in a separate post. I need to give the people something to look forward to- something akin to a prostate exam given by a Japanese spider crab diagnosed with a difficult temperament prone to mood swings.) Fox concludes the subtopic of income in his article by revealing “the income gap is an issue that’s been danced around for too long. It’s time to address it.”

Taxes: The other subtopic of interest from Fox’s Time article was “Taxes”. He writes that “In general, we levy taxes not to ease income inequality but to fund government . . . for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends in September, the government will probably spend $500 billion more than it takes in, a deficit of 3.5% of GDP.” That cannot continue. The only two options are control government spending (in my opinion by redirecting what the government already takes in in taxes to more worthwhile, responsibly-managed areas) or taxing the public. The desires of the public given this dichotomy are more obvious than the brotherly love a fairy tern with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder******* has for a sea gull to which it was once considered more directly related. If that wasn’t clear, I think the American public wants the federal and state governments to be more responsible.

Pro business taxes: In her article “It’s His Tax Hike, and—Bravely—He’s Sticking to it” (May 10, 2009, OP1 and OP3) Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant writes of her man crush on DFL senate tax chairman Tom Bakk who may be running for Minnesota governor in 2010. Ok, so it isn’t really a man crush . . . Sturdevant is a woman. She finds “Bakk’s unabashed call for a tax hike an uncommon show of political courage and candor.” I think that after six years of her excoriating governor Pawlenty, she is fawning after any kind of tax increase at all. I think she may be happy if the only taxes we raised across the whole state were hers, and I’ve commented that taxes may need to be raised, only after it is objectively verified that they have to be. I’ve written this so many times, as recently as the beginning of this installment, I won’t even bother with a cross reference. Bakk’s proposed tax bill, in addition to rolling back some income tax reductions from 2000, would add “a fourth tier, 9.25 percent on any portion of married joint filers’ incomes greater than $250,000.” That, to republicans, is more illogical than the mating habits of the Mekong giant catfish. Sturdevant also writes that “Baak refutes any suggestion that he’s unfriendly to business.” Riiiiiight, and I’m not passionately long-winded. “Baak believes access to quality education and affordable health care are probusiness” not while your bill includes a “$330 million increase in the statewide business property tax.” Saying you are pro business while championing a bill which significantly raises taxes on businesses is like saying the flippers a sea turtle uses to move through the ocean can also be used for flight. I would only be in favor of a tax increase on small businesses making less than $300k if 1) we had already saved millions in state funds that could be redirected to education and health care; 2) the richest 1-5% of the state had their taxes increased and 3) a guy like Baak stops admitting that eating tapir feces is an aphrodisiac. You can’t make outlandish statements that unite two completely antithetical worlds and expect the taxpayer to take you seriously; who do you think you are, some kind of blogger or something? Sturdevant seems like she would believe Baak if he said that installing a chain link fence would keep dandelions out of her yard.

Vote on Taxes Committee: I know there are all kinds of entities, conservative, liberal and Independent running around predicting a novel and depressing future for a country as great as ours, like little Nostrodami, but on the issue of taxes very little predicting is necessary. If we keep raising taxes to fund war and welfare, health care and social security, the budget deficit, a weak economy, protecting gravity from falling leaves in the fall, whatever the reason, this leaves the people and its country morally and financially bankrupt. This is the first page from a website I ran across doing research on the subtopic of taxation:

“Your ‘Vote on Taxes’ Committee is committed to adding the ‘Vote on Taxes’ amendment to the U.S. Constitution. History has demonstrated that requiring voter approval of new taxes and spending will ensure that future generations of Americans will enjoy significantly higher standards of living than if government continues to tax and spend at will. The official forecast is for the U.S. to run out of money by 2050 leading to a multi-generational economic decline.

“The process of amending our Constitution is difficult, time consuming and needs the broad support of the American people. Never in our history has an amendment been successfully proposed and ratified by state legislatures. But, the founding fathers had the foresight to include a way that the states, without the help of the U.S. Congress, could change the Constitution if there were no other way to preserve the American dream of freedom and expanding economic prosperity.”

What!? Bypass Moses (the U.S. congress) in order to get a new commandment (Constitutional amendment) into the most venerated list of ambiguously worded rights ever written. We would have a better chance trusting an el legarto with diphtheria to baby sit our children than of adding a logical, people’s rights amendment to that document, a right that is not infringed upon by government, conservative blowhards or liberal tree-huggers, abused by convicted murderers, or misinterpreted by supreme court justices. (Note: el legarto (or lizard) is Spanish for alligator.) Nowhere is referendum voting more needed than on the issue of taxation and that is what will make the process of fighting its collection the least likely alteration in the country. After all, if we bypassed politicians and charged ourselves with our own governance, who would misrepresent us? Too bad we cannot deleverage our warehouse full of politicians like a lot of companies have been doing with their assets in order to gather capital.

Tax obligation: I don’t know that anyone thinks the idea of having their taxes raised sounds like a good idea, but I agree with Nader who writes that: “For millions of individuals, acceptance of their tax obligations would increase if they thought everyone was paying their fair share and the monies were being used efficiently and wisely.” (The Good Fight,********* pg. 80) That is quite a lot to expect of our government, quite a big if, but hardly an extreme idea. We'll probably never get any more from our government unless we demand it, and likely even if we do. There is a better chance of seeing a puffin off the coast of Maine the third week of August that is into cannibalism and dreams of being a former catholic prelate than there is that the government is going to be responsible with our money. Strange things happen all the time. It was inconceivable two weeks ago that the USA would be playing for the FIFA soccer championship, considering the string of events that had to go their way: a win by 3 goals a loss by Italy of 3 goals and a US victory over #1 Spain.

ECHO NARCISSISM REVISITED- see part 16
(Independent party continued from above)

I could probably have been done with this overall topic of the economic middle class woes a long time ago except that my stubbornness and diligence outrank other people’s attention span. I must admit, if I weren’t the author of this now 50 part blog saga, I probably wouldn’t be reading it either. I wrote- probably.

Supposed: They tell us it is supposed to rain, our kids are supposed to behave and eat their vegetables, we are all supposed to say please and thank you, but apparently no one told Joel Stein that Independents (those by word and deed) no longer feel as if voting for either a democrat or republican is something we are supposed to do- not those of us with balls anyway. Joel Stein wrote a column that appeared in the March 10, 2008 issue of Time magazine with the heading “How Sorry is this Guy? If Ralph Nader wants any votes in this election, he should cop to the last one he screwed up.” (pg. 72).

Stein begins: Nader “is the progenitor of two of the world’s most annoying types of people: local-TV consumer advocates and guys who enjoy reminding you to put your seat belt on.” I happen to think that is fairly standard fare and would consider those as two more things, well-meaning citizens are supposed to do. I would have guessed that flaming liberals, like Stein, (after all, he writes for Time magazine) who have probably compared Al Gore to Bobby Kennedy, would also be on the short list of the world’s most annoying- along with Mario Lopez (Slater from “Saved by the Bell”), the dude who got dimple implants before deciding he would never say no to any project his agent ever brought to his attention. Yeah, I can do cutesy little allusions to strangely popular television personalities too. (Stein had dropped an Urkel reference in the column- very impressive.) Perhaps Stein has never shared an apartment with a squirrel, had to wash parts of their bathroom ceiling down the drain before stepping into the shower, or had a sprinkler company blame you for their mistake after unsuccessfully winterizing your irrigation system. Stein may never have needed to file a claim to the Better Business Bureau, nor needed to go to court to fight the apartment complex manager for the rent money you put in escrow, (because of the squirrels and the leaky pipes I mentioned above). These types of protections are in place because of people like Nader- look up Nader's bio. The real world’s most annoying types of people are hypocrites and bo-bos for one of the two major political parties; the dichotomy between those two types is less complex than the plot of the average Full House episode, because there isn’t a dichotomy. Does the term package deal mean anything to you?

Dismissed: I really wonder why Stein would write an article about how easily Nader could be dismissed. Isn’t it easier to dismiss someone if you don’t bring up their name? Apparently Stein can’t handle the truth and did not get the memo, that Nader was not to be touched by any in the media in 2008, which is the surest sign of disrespect in print form. (Of course, it is difficult to use the form of disrespect categorized by not writing about someone if you’ve already decided to not write about them. Don't worry about it- that one confused me too.) Stein must have been hard up for a column to defy his brand of liberal mafia bosses********** like that—he went all Code Red*********** on Nader in this article, and I am presuming without consent from those who choose which candidates are worthy of being ignored, or unworthy of being covered—you’d be surprised, there is a huge difference, or not. That can backfire. Note to self, look into the difference between the liberal print media and the liberal television media, and calculate the difference in terms of overall "political elitist" points. According to Stein, Nader “[took] key votes from Al Gore . . . [and that democrats and republicans] hate him for getting George Bush elected.”

Mock outage: Fans of professional sports grow eager as playoff series and championships are to be decided because they expect that the two best teams throughout the season ought to meet to decide the title. The better NFC team during the 2007 season was the Green Bay Packers, as evidenced by their 13 wins and home field advantage in the NFC championship game, which they lost to the New York Giants, a wild-card team, but the better team that day. Gore, apparently wasn’t considered that much better than Bush in the 2000 election or the supreme court would not have been required to declare Bush the president. The Giants went on to stun the almost invincible, and undefeated, New England Patriots for one of the most entertaining and improbable championships in sports history. So, when Stein writes that “Nader just can’t admit that he’s at least a little responsible for Gore’s loss” I cannot help but disagree, even should Stein be penning one of his columns teeming with mock outrage. It almost seems as if, and I am probably just being a little sensitive here, that Stein is blaming what all of us, as Americans, have been through these last eight years, with Bush II at the helm, on Nader’s limited appeal to those fed up with the failures we, as a collection of voters, keep electing. It isn’t the Independent’s fault that the major party’s put up two very average candidates. The venom of some of the more obvious implications Stein makes might lead an aye-aye whose mental retardation is discussed in the lady bug community to celebrate the first original thought of its life. To wit, Stein admits: “I’m still glad he’s running. It’s important for people who feel they’re not being heard to have the option to vote for insane, incapable candidates . . . Only new parties can break us out of dangerous paradigms . . . [and that] a two-party system is designed to eliminate extreme ideas . . .” and here I thought it was because they could collude to suppress reasonable ones, like fiscal responsibility, a review of government oversight, a position of compromise between the two extreme political ideologies that are defined by the republicans and democrats and backed by the media. Even a Smurf shaman knows that. (Note: For instances where a republican or democrat has either been proven or suspected to be a hypocrite please see parts 1-49 or do some research for yourself. I can't do everything. The number of supporting arguments a millipede could make would probably not shock you. That means- everyone, even insects, knows how consistently rueful, and how easily obtainable are examples, of the pledges and promises of politicians and the manner in which they go about the super-legal business of collecting money and votes.************)

Seriously: Stein condescendingly concedes that “a new party is not Nader’s goal. He simply wants to give people—especially those who are independent and didn’t vote in the primaries—a chance to register dissatisfaction so extreme that they’re willing to hurt themselves to express it.” Stein, a bo-bo for liberalism, is spectacular at delivering his brand of hip demagogy and is still angry that his average candidate (Gore) was Bush-whacked in 2000; isn't there counseling for that? A dingo roadie eunuch is less hip but more potent than someone who writes an article about dismissing someone that is attempting to better the political landscape with intelligence and process improvements. Stein should just take an intern assignment with the WHO************* and propagate the information storm for this fall’s swine flu extravaganza or disseminate leaflets autographed in tears shed after he learned of the death of Michael Jackson.************** Reading Stein makes me want to give my recliner a hug. Stein’s whole article is about downplaying the need for additional parties in the political process; Independents (and by that I mean those who actually vote for Independents) take democrats and republicans as seriously as they take us. That is why we don't vote for them anymore; we may have to wait 20 years for everyone else to catch up.

Foolish consistency and consistent hypocrisy: I stopped favoring people that lied to me in the third grade. Mr. Stein ought to remember that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Emerson. Consistently voting for one consistently hypocritical party or another to keep some kind of exemplary ignorance streak alive is also something for which one should apologize. If Stein, and the millions like him, can’t figure that out- get out of the way. (Note: if anyone questions why I could continue to use the word hypocrisy, do some research on the candidates from both major parties over the past 70 years- it isn’t pretty; there are just as many crazies in that bunch as anywhere else. Those in the mainstream who cite examples of kooks in the margin have a shorter memory than a sardine with rheumatism that somehow accidentally just escaped from its tin coffin. There just isn’t room on earth for that many in the mainstream to be such hypocrites.)

Stein concludes: “Part of Nader’s problem is that the Democrats are so good at self-righteous anger. Perot cost the first Bush the 1992 election, but no one got too upset when he ran again in 1996. People just ignored him. That’s how third parties are supposed to work.” Not exactly. Third parties introduce mainstream components essentially authored by a number of citizens who have grown tired of the same damn thing over and over again- partisan politics, hypocrisy, ineffectiveness, lies and half-truths. Actually, “people” did not ignore Perot, as he still gathered over 8% of the popular vote, pretty good for someone who was ignored. Elections have been won or lost, and blame assessed to third party candidates who have gathered less than 8%. Who really ignored Perot, the third party candidate, was the media, who always loves a good story, even if they have to make one up. Clinton, after all, only beat Dole by a little over 8%. So, whose problem is it when an incumbent president, whose popularity was pretty high among democrats, with the media behind him, defeats a senator well past his prime, (Dole had been running for either vice-president or president every election since 1976, excepting when his party was running an incumbent president) by a relatively small margin in popular vote while an Independent candidate gets about the same percentage (8%) as the popular vote margin of victory while being ignored? It is easy to say that the people ignored Perot when they were only following the media’s lead. (Note: there were 11 states in the 1996 election where the percentage of the popular vote was less than 5%. Men like Stein should either pay attention to a third party candidate, or the bo-bo mandate handed down to him by others, but not both. It is best to be consistent. Also, after three unsuccessful attempts at claiming the office of the president of the United States, shouldn't Bob Dole have just gone away?)

Conversations: I’ve gotten involved in a number of issue discussions with friends and relatives about politics over the past five years and this is the simplest way I can state this. Take an empty ice cube tray and hold it so that the long end is at your stomach as you stand poised before the faucet. Turn the water on at half flow and watch to see what happens when placing either the left or the right row of compartments directly under the stream of water. More than half of the water we intend to direct into the compartments in the left and right columns shoots out of the tray. Move the tray so that the water hits the divider between the two columns. The tray is so much easier to fill. If one man’s uncle is huffily proclaiming that all the republicans do and say is right and another man’s neighbor is saying that the democrats are so spot on in their world view and have exactly the opposite stance as a republican on the ten biggest issues of the day (health care, entitlements, immigration, education, foreign policy, redistribution of wealth, etc.), wouldn’t logic dictate that the man that thinks they’re both nuts, and values the better components of each such as they are, be more reasonable by default?

Faction: When following the herd, it may be best to, at times, consider if you are going the right way, and if you are leading it, if you do well by those that follow. There is no doubt that the Independents have “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” in mind- consistently. If you are skeptical about whether the republicans and democrats do, why keep voting for them or why listen to people who have apparently cornered the market on faction.

_____________________________________
* And when I say electable, I only mean- capable of being elected. This does not speak well of those who are casting votes in favor of those types of candidates.

** As judged by who? Well, the taxpayer of course. I probably have not indicated enough that there ought to be more referendum voting, particularly where the money to be used for any endeavor comes directly from the money that a citizen has earned from their own labor. There are plenty of caveats with this which it may be best not to address at this time, else this column digress into a topic far removed from what is intended. I do that enough as it is.

*** I read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune written by columnist Nick Coleman that tried to put a myth about Minnesota being a welfare state to bed (see OP3). Coleman quoted governor Tim Pawlenty as saying (after he vetoed certain tax increase measures that would have benefited the poor): “ ‘There’s increasing concern about people coming from other parts of the country for our welfare system, . . . They’re not coming for the weather.’ ” Coleman then refers to a Department of Human Services report that indicated that “14 percent of public assistance seekers were from outside Minnesota in 2007” and then admits to not knowing “how many public assistance clients left Minnesota.” A) I would not refer to public assistance recipients as “clients”, and B) if you have no knowledge of how many of those on public assistance left the state in 2007, perhaps you ought not to bring it up- it may look like the point of your entire column was overcome. If communities could recover lost funds spent on no-bid military contracts and redirect that spending toward K-12 education, by paying more for talented teachers rather than those whose union protects their own inadequacies, the unfortunate link between a lack of an education and employment prospects could be in part resolved, which would alleviate some of the crime committed by those who are woefully uneducated. You wish to deny the connection between an uneducated populace and the amount of criminal activities they are involved in? Good luck. Yes, I turned the topic from social services and tax vetoes to education and crime- you will have to live with that. (Note: When I refer to crime- I am not talking about white collar crime; we all know that is an inestimable amount- any calculator I’ve ever owned only goes to eight digits.)

**** A Time/Rockefeller Foundation Survey found that 66% agreed that “even if you work hard and play by the rules, you can no longer expect to afford health care, college and a secure retirement.” (Time- July 28, 2008, pg. 41) That question did not include all of the other necessary costs that people forget about, heating oil, gas, home maintenance, financing weddings, paying for the furnace to be fixed, new siding, youth hockey, etc. It should also be noted that the percentages as broken down indicated that those making less than $20k were at 76% and those making more than $100k were at 56%. The most significant percentage to me was that the broadly defined middle class, those making between $50k and $99k came in with a percentage that matched the overall number- 66%.

***** My words, not Biden’s.

****** Depending on which interpretation you would like to believe- that she is a racist and sexist judge because of her well-chronicled comments about bringing her life experiences into play, as a latina woman, before deciding a case, or that her brand of intellectual empathy is just what the court needs, one thing is certain, there is no shortage of things that need to be interpreted where the Constitution is concerned, so why not have another justice whose divining powers are not beyond reproach weighing in on cases that barely affect anyone anymore.

******* Given that both the fairy tern and the federal government both have ADHD of dissimilar classification********, I would trust the tern’s ability to cope with their version of the neurobehavioral developmental disorder, even should they only be charged with using their beak to redistribute federal funding appropriately.

******** A footnote in a footnote again- the government suffers from ABDHD- attention budget deficit hyperactivity disorder- which compels the federal and state fundraisers to, impulsively and inattentively, funnel large dollar amounts to projects of which the taxpayer does not approve.

********* A book that is just barely less important to the social and political landscape as da Vinci’s 1,120 page Codex Atlanticus is historically. The Codex contains drawings and writings from 1478-1519 on topics such as flying machines, weapons, mathematics and botany.

********** I was going to go with a reference to Boss Hog, the white-suit wearing big-boned fellow from The Dukes of Hazzard—after all, I have an 80s-themed rebuttal going here.

*********** Anyone realize I just made a number of A Few Good Men references in that paragraph? I know, AFGM is not from the 80s and is not a television show. Just my version of Where’s Waldo- with words.

************ A fund-raising event held at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California implicated former vice-president Al Gore. The event was organized by DNC fund-raisers. "It is illegal under U.S. law for religious organizations to donate money to politicians or political groups due to their tax-exempt status. The U.S. Justice Department alleged Hsia facilitated $100,000 in illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign through her efforts at the Temple. Hsia was eventually convicted by a jury in March 2000. The DNC eventually returned the money donated by the Temple's monks and nuns. Twelve nuns and employees of the Temple refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment when they were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in 1997." Google Gore and campaign finance issues and you will eventually navigate to that result. And how perfect- that those who contributed the money illegally,would be protected by the Constitution.

************* Not the band- the World Health Organization.

************** Personally, the loss of Farah Fawcett is just as terrible. Sure, discovering who is next in line to the throne of The King of Pop will occupy us for weeks, but the loss of the woman who had the most famous nipples on the planet is far more daunting. Besides, I always thought it was strange that carbonated beverages needed to seat a monarch.

Middle Class Part 49: The Free Market and Constitution Again, Taxation Chapter 3 and Samuel Johnson's Poetry

2009-05-25T13:43:00.002-05:00

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.

Middle Class Part 48: Time Travel, Parthenogenesis in Sharks, the Swine Flu . . . and Taxation Chapter 2

2009-05-15T06:15:00.006-05:00

INTRODUCTORY AND METAPHORICAL COMPONENTS OF THE SUBTOPIC

Time traveling: Fairly recently, a co-worker gave me a year’s worth of Time magazines that he had subscribed to. The most peculiar thing about them, other than the fact that Obama appeared on the cover about once a month, is how amusing life can be in retrospect. I imagine myself time-traveling and mocking some of the text I am reading. I could list many examples which made me ponder, a few of which would take us well off topic. I’ll restrict myself to those that don’t . . . pretty much. I am only about halfway through the stack, so I may be quoting from quite a number of them, even if it looks to the reader like the relavence to the subtopic of taxation is slight.

Taxation and parthenogenesis* (the parthenogenesis part): A number of instances from my acquired stable of issues of Time magazine stand out which are germane to the topic at hand and will provide me with a base of material for this installment. One is found within a weekly feature page called “Verbatim” which quotes newsmakers, whether political, athletic, scientific, societal, currently popular or notorious, etc. The quote from the October 27, 2008 briefing page- “It just goes to show how the ocean keeps its secrets very well.” The explanatory text beneath the quote reads: “Demian Chapman, scientist with New York’s Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, after a virgin shark gave birth—the second known instance of parthenogenesis in sharks.” The first known instance of shark’s reproducing sans sexual intercourse is untraceable, but is suspected to have deep ties to nepotism, politics or religion. We all know of the virgin birth of the son of god, who was put to death as a sacrifice for the sins of man, later, the idea of holding men accountable for their sinful earthly actions by nationalizing the idea of a toilsome afterlife occurred to god. If this was the guaranteed outcome for the evil, this would vindictively reassure me that the conscience-driven life was superior. “Shark” is the codeword for a deviously-trained, fortune-seeking, manipulative, rule-making, selfishly-desperate human being and the application of the word is not restricted to card players or jagged-fanged uber-predators, but extends to politicians. These political sharks give birth to dozens and dozens of tax schemes every legislative session and the unsuspecting populace often has no idea where they come from. Whoever first thought up, virginally, the idea of taxation, a thought pregnant with so much usurious possibility that it makes the kukkabura, a meat eating bird, that willingly transmits streptococcus, seem likeable by comparison, was the primal shark- the first which gave birth to the many sharks which have followed, many of whom live in Washington, some of whom are sons, perhaps born immaculately to fiendish rogue politicians who are too evil to have had sex with women.

Taxation and parthenogenesis (the taxation part): Some taxes are necessary and I pay them without question. It is the tax incidence, and not the instance, that I object to. Some taxes are ridiculous in their nature or simply go to fund the government’s irresponsibility. I look forward to paying the latter about as much as I anticipate conversing with a free-market capitalist whose favorite Disney character, if I had to wager a guess, would be Monstro (the whale from Pinocchio). A notable observation relative to the largest mammal on the planet is that it eats a lot. "A baby blue whale drinks over 50 gallons of its mother's milk in a day. In its first several weeks of life, it gains 10 pounds an hour or a little over 200 pounds in a day!" (See- http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/planetocean/bluewhale.html) That monstrosity of progress rivals the trade deficit. Its appetite, like some liberal's appetite for handouts, is insatiable. The blue whale traps thousands of krill in a net of bubbles- "During its high feeding season, a blue whale consumes more than 4-6 tons of krill in one day" often trapping them in a net of bubbles meant to disorient the krill into submission. Remind you of the typical taxpayer's reaction to the net of subservience in these oligarchical United States? Thought so. A whale has a couple of obvious things in common (girth and dwelling area- in the ocean) with a shark. I don’t envy Aquaman, the social obligation of feeling like he has to talk to bastards like whales and sharks,** the latter given their ability to give birth immaculately and swallow things whole, would truly be a labor of love. And he is really the only one qualified to do so; Aquaman is like the messiah of fish. We, the taxpayer, are like little fish flitting our way through the ocean of life, hoping not to get consumed by some greedy bigger fish, sometimes one within our own company. That bigger fish may see the benefit in a different business model, one which allows the migratory practice of big fish seeking cheaper laborers overseas.*** Not even a feral cat is so unloyal. Paying more money in taxes when there is a national crisis, a Time magazine graph indicates, is something voters are willing to do “if the money goes to fund the right solution.” (See- “The Case for Bigger Government” Jeffrey D. Sachs, January 19, 2009, pgs. 34-36.) I did not see a graph in any of the magazines when I was time traveling concerning how little taxes citizens would like to pay when it is assured that billions of dollars in tax money are wasted by a government with less oversight than a bouncer-less backwoods, topless café that only employs three-breasted women on mullet night.

A recession on immigration: The third interesting time-traveling nugget comes from the June 18, 2007 issue of Time which dismissed the suspected harmful effects of amnesty. There are several bold headings which introduce justifications why amnesty would not be harmful to the United States. The fifth heading addresses the 1986 amnesty and mentions that “Studies show that the valleys and peaks in migration have depended far less on changes in policy or policing and far more on the basic economic conditions in the U.S. and Mexico. If you want to truly tamp down illegal immigration, you could induce a recession in the U.S. A better idea might be to help Mexico create more jobs that pay better. A recent Council on Foreign Relations study found that when Mexican wages drop 10% relative to U.S. wages, attempts to cross the border illegally rise 6%.”**** The fact that our country would go to such great lengths to stem the tide of illegal immigration is encouraging, (I’m referring to the U.S. having induced a recession, the only thing more insidious is the induction of a shark conceived immaculately), better than a wall or fence, more border patrol agents, stiffer penalties, helicopters, etc., and what a truly masterful plan that is. Instead of a state-of-the-art-fence that would have cost an estimated $4-8 billion dollars,***** the federal government decided to allow banks and other financial institutions to go almost completely unregulated in their business practices and put the taxpayer, (whether current or unborn) at an extreme disadvantage- as they have decided rather to bail out the financial industry to the tune of $750 billion or more . . . That hell isn’t over yet.

Taxation and wages I: What is with the shark metaphor, writing about wages****** as if they were completely partnered with taxes, immigration (see parts 22-27) and the recession (which I’ve written about in half of my posts since immigration) all in one big mess of text? I might ask that myself, and I am the author of this blog saga. I am merely suggesting how interconnected everything is. We are the taxpayers, subject to the whims of political sharks and the volatile nature of 21st century financial markets, held hostage by the representatives we elect and hemorrhaging our jobs to foreign workers whether they come legitimately, via a work-visa, or are not detained at our border. We are, in fact, taxed on our earnings (our wages), so it seems to me a logical step to address taxes along with wages, much more logical than a number of corporations, some reporting 32.1% operating profit margins, that still compulsively want, apparently, to earn all of the money in the world. Their appetite for money reminds me of a whale's appetite for krill. Also, how directly taxes are tied to wages should come as no surprise to those who have brought home a paycheck or who were the least interested in the economic recovery/stimulus bill’s operational effects on the average taxpayer- “Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring [2010]. The government is going to want some of that money back. The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February [2009] . . . new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.” (See- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1, “INSIDE WASHINGTON: Taxpayers to Get Rude Surprise” Stephen Olemacher, Associated Press Writer, April 30, 2009.) If you can’t see how American wages are determined by the taxes imposed by the government, the government’s inability to protect its workers from loan sharks, and the political sharks we elect to keep our jobs safe from invaders, perhaps some time traveling is in order. Instead of looking at the past, you are going to want to see what it will do to us.

Taxes and wages II: It should be said that immigration directly reduces our taxes, which we should be thankful for, excepting that it reduces our wages by doing so; taxes are proportional with earnings; non-salaried employees don’t have to remember this if they can still read their paycheck. If we earn less, the government removes less in payroll taxes. Middle class payroll taxes are surely held in check by the earning of less money, which without question can be tied both to immigration and to the outsourcing of jobs overseas. Anyone who cannot see this probably thinks a singing competition between chickens that must remove butter from their talons with cold water while doing so is a good idea.

Wages- we don’t need no stinkin’ wages (apparently): A 2007 Pew Research study concerning the perception of economic haves and have-nots as compared with a 1988 study reported these reasons as important determining factors for people classifying themselves as haves or have nots: race, political orientation, sex, age, education level and region of residence in the United States. What do I feel is the most important determining factor- what should cause you to classify yourself as a have or have-not? The reality of either actually having or not having. A young piglet could not consider itself a leopard simply because it has spots. It is its destiny to be consumed or spend its life in some South Dakotan petting zoo, for having-not. The study reveals that- “The increased prevalence of both views -- that the country is increasingly divided along economic lines and that a given individual is on the wrong side of that divide -- finds support in national economic data. As numerous studies have demonstrated in recent years, income gains over the last few decades have been heavily concentrated at the very top of the income distribution. For example, in an update of their earlier study of long-term U.S. income trends, economists Piketty and Saez compute that the share of income going to families in the top 1% of the income scale has doubled from 8% in 1980 to 16% in 2004 even excluding capital gains. (For a review of other recent studies see an earlier Pew commentary, ‘Pinched Pocketbooks: Do Average Americans Spot Something That Most Economists Miss?’)”

‘Meanwhile, Congressional Budget Office data show that despite the increase in the number of families with two or more earners and widespread income gains in the latter half of the 1990s, families in the middle fifth of the income distribution realized only a modest $6,600 increase in annual income between 1988 and 2004, while the top 1% of families saw their incomes rise from $839,100 to an average [of] $1,259,700. Recently released Census Bureau data show that in 2006, median household income adjusted for inflation was still 2.1% below its 1999 level.******* More sensationally, Bloomberg.com recently reported on a study showing that ‘top private-equity and hedge fund managers made more in 10 minutes than average-paid U.S. workers earned all of last year.’ ” (See- http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots “A Nation of Haves and Have-Nots? Far More Americans See Their Nation as Divided Along Economic Lines” Jodie Allen, September 13, 2007.) And as certain employees work for corporations with operating profit margins of “a whopping 32.1 percent”******** and can still receive only a 1.5% raise, fear that their job is to be moved overseas within the next year, and be told that the business unit they are inspired to work for is making a “boatload” of money (according to the business unit’s director). I haven’t decided whether the way managers talk to the employees about a corporation’s financial well-being should be the complete snow job mentality or the keepin’ it real approach; what I do know is that the employees won’t care as long as they are better compensated for their tolerance of your lies or your down-home jocularity. Ask a rabbit if it prefers blood meal on its hosta-leaf salad, or prefers to be threatened with removal from its occupation while not being paid in insects. Very little difference. You may have a hunch that there is a third approach- the truth, and a fourth, getting laws passed which inhibit a corporation's chances of selling American workers down the river. Such a law, say the conservatives, is unconstitutional. I wonder how many republicans would say so if their prospects were tied to one employer, and it was their job on the line. I look forward to a discussion with a republican who semi-consciously suffers from a collective prolapsed conservatism without their knowledge about as much as another computer reconfiguration which butchers all of my internet settings, removes non-corporate supported work-functional applications and destroys all of the productively assimilated functionality I've worked 3 years to install. Note- I recently had my computer reconfigured- there isn't a word in the English language I could use to express my frustration with either the prolapsees or the reconfiguration.

Mr. Independent: Lou Dobbs, in “Independents Day” writes, “I believe that a number of factors explain the stagnation of working wages and a rising sense of anxiety and frustration in our middle class. Corporate America is undeterred in its determination to outsource middle-class jobs and to import cheap foreign labor, while our government is representing neither the interest of our people nor that of our nation. The divide between the wealthy and privileged and the middle class and those who aspire to it is widening. A 2007 Pew[*********] Research study found not only that the American family’s income has failed to keep up with productivity growth since 2000, but that working men in their thirties today earn less than men in their thirties did in 1974. As recently as a decade ago, young working men were earning more than their fathers.” (pg. 170) Dobbs also writes, “In 1980 a meat-packing job paid nineteen dollars an hour, but today that same job pays closer to nine dollars an hour, according to the Labor Department. That’s entirely consistent with what we’ve reported on the show: Illegal aliens depress wages for U.S. workers by as much as $200 billion a year, in addition to placing a tremendous burden on hospitals, schools, and other social services.” (pg. 156 of “Independents Day”)

Transposed subject matter: Surely these next two quotations apply more to immigration than taxes, but then why would I include them here? Dobbs quotes California congressman Ed Royce- “It [allowing immigrants with few skills into the country] is going to push down wages, it’s going to import an awful lot of poverty into this country, and these individuals on average pay one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in public benefits they receive. Figure out what it means for Social Security in the future as a consequence of this act.” (pg. 156 of “Independents Day”) And when a fair-minded citizen, the mayor of an east coast town, objects to the path this country is taking, a hard line is drawn by judges who are legislating from the bench by using the tired- “it is unconstitutional” refrain to allow just about anything more sensible people would find revolting- “No case attracted more national attention than that of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In the summer of 2007 a federal court ruled that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which aimed to hold landlords and employers responsible if they did business with illegal aliens, is unconstitutional. More than 120 communities across the country have passed similar legislation and local laws.” (ID pg. 160, 161) The judge’s words justifying his ruling indicate that he may have contracted the dumb-ass flu. However, I won’t even include them here; I’ve decided that I can’t quote everything Dobbs writes. As I write this, I am wearing a swine flu mask so that I don’t catch the dumb ass flu. Despite the fact that the case is almost two years old- yeah you never know what can happen when you’re still time traveling, contact with a shortsighted liberal who may still be a carrier for any of a variety of animal-appellated illnesses. If a scientist doing stem cell research had found the genetic code for scientifically reproducing Care Bears in a petrie dish, liberals would demand that it was unconstitutional to destroy those cells. They would want the Care Bears to have voting rights, encourage the introduced species to use names like Unconstituional Bear and Dumb-Ass Bear and guarantee them citizenship if they wait out the whole dubiously predictable amnesty bill that will get passed during the Obama administration. I’ll have more on the constitution below time; shocking isn’t it? I have to get back to my time-traveling theme.

Big government: From a January 19, 2009, Time article “The Case for Bigger Government by Jeffrey D. Sachs, come these sentences- “We’ve kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe’s by focusing on the private sector [allowing the unregulated free market exchange of money to dominate the economy]. After citing the Obama administration’s inherited litany of problems- “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression: the financial sector is in ruins; the budget is hemorrhaging red ink; debt-ridden households have clamped down on spending . . . unemployment is soaring; the country is in two wars; and the unmet social and environmental needs are vast . . .” the next sentence is the panacea for the 44th president- “These conditions demand a fundamental realignment in strategy that ultimately comes back to taxation: Will we pay for the government we need?” (pg. 35) Aren’t we already paying for the government we need? They take taxes from my earnings each paycheck that go to social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%) and my employer keeps my wages low because they are on the hook for unemployment taxes, which, by the way are significantly lower than actually paying an employee. I know, that seemed obvious, but I just thought I would make sure you catch my meaning. Oh, and I forgot, they remove money for Fed Withholding and MN Withholding, which money is accumulated for just about anything else, budget shortfalls, money for tanks, protecting us against the swine flu. Through December 20, 2008 the total amount removed from those two areas, from my pay checks was almost $3,300. All together from the four taxed areas I list above, I had over $7,000 removed in 2008.

Big Constitution: I ask myself, when I am not considering how ridiculous a cheetah would look trying to moon walk while being attacked by a swarm of gnats with the dumbass flu and in between bouts of my too self-conscious preoccupation with being introspective, isn’t that enough? Isn’t it too much, for a citizen who has absolutely no control over how his earnings are disseminated? If anyone brings up the notion that I have a say based on who I vote for, I am going to tell them that is an unconstitutional comment. This will instantly put them on the defensive because they will have to read through the Constitution for the rest of their lives searching for the words that would even cryptically hint that this is true; I think this the most used war-of-words tactic in the adult world and rivals the pint-sized version- "I know my dad could beat up your dad." If state and federal judges do it, what is to stop oveeager conservatives and liberals from using it? Distinguishing between republicans who want to tax me and say that banning smoking in public is unconstitutional and democrats who want to tax me and say that outlawing abortions is unconstitutional is a guy like me saying that the Constitution is unconstitutional! (There is much more angst-ridden text contained within the Time article I quote from above; Sachs even equates how much taxes contribute to the GDP, a point not lost on me, and one which I have already brought up as a way the government will have to justify increasing taxes if consumer spending continues to plummet- [see part 45] and if big government "rescues" us by providing the overtaxed with universal health care.)

The plan: I wonder- what is the government’s plan? The government allows illegals into the country which takes low paying jobs from Americans (pre-recession of course), and the government allows the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which takes from Americans an increasing share of middle class jobs; without a job, a worker cannot be taxed, as they earn no money, without money, it is awfully hard to purchase things. That statement excepts property taxes, which a citizen won’t have because he won’t be able to afford a house, because of the no job thing, and excepting sales tax, such as on food, an extra-necessary cost, which he won’t be able to afford because he won’t have a job, there will be significantly fewer taxes to be had as a component of the GDP. So, the only people not overly afflicted with a financial shortcoming are the rich, who are the ones who can afford to finance the campaigns of the politicians empowered with making the decisions that are costing everyone who is not rich so much money, family, identity and is protecting those with money from the reasonable demands of everyone else. Is there some science fiction movie somewhere that has already played out this scenario?

Sachs concludes: “. . . though almost no U.S. politician will say it now, the U.S. will probably have to follow Europe down the path of the value-added tax—a kind of national sales tax. In the past 50 years, arguing for tax increases to fund the expansion of federal programs has been a political death wish.” (pg. 36) Well, not really. Imagine this whole economic situation from an Independent’s perspective. Consider a video game such as Space Invaders. Imagine the plot of Space Invaders was that these underdeveloped aliens were coming for you. These were nameless, faceless bugs descending upon you en masse asking for more money in taxes, or not even more money, but rather asking for the same amount of money despite the fact that your wages never noticeably increased, and they have no intention of apologizing to you for how delinquently they spent the money you gave them last year. The only thing that distinguishes one of the space invaders from every other is that it used to occupy a certain space a certain distance from your laser cannon. You might remove ten to one hundred aliens with a laser cannon, the only defense you have, besides the ability to move laterally, but eventually, unless you are a superior player, (which you only become by feeding the machine with a dollars in quarters), you are overcome by sheer numbers. How is this result distinguishable from the plethora of like-minded politicians who claim to be democrats or republicans and claim the money that you have earned. If one politician/alien is eliminated as a potential candidate to feaux-represent you, others simply take their place, their advance upon you quickens and though the governor of your state might veto a tax bill (see below) the majority of them passed through their chamber of government, they’ll charge an internet access tax or a tax on items purchased on the internet, or a tax for successfully potty training your daughter in a weekend, to offset the diaper lobby’s loss of your patronage. I see virtually no characteristics which would separate an alien in Space Invaders from the average politician. They come for your money and your job, and are backed by those who seldom ever have to fear for the loss of either. (Note, I’ve read a Minnesota tax increase proposal that would increase the tax on items bought on the internet and also read an article about an internet access tax that has been considered in the past, but seems as if it cannot be enacted, for states that have not been grandfathered in, until 2014. See- http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9807418-7.html.) I am already charged $60 a month for internet access- that’ll do.

Europe and broken America: The author of the above referenced article (Sachs) writes, “As our budget choices were getting tougher in the 1970s, Europe faced similar dilemmas and took a different course. While Americans rejected new taxes and domestic programs, Europeans elected governments that introduced higher taxation, mainly value-added taxes, to cover the rising costs of health care, education, infrastructure, poverty relief and international-development aid.” (pg. 36) First, and this is one of the most important points I have made in this whole blog saga, trim the government waste, hire me and I will show you where it is. Then, and only then, ask the citizens who still have jobs to pay more in taxes. When you cut through all of the political red tape, the favors owed to campaign contributors, the pork in your state and federal legislation, the unregulated free market, the ridiculously ambiguous language in the Constitution, the migration of jobs overseas and the assumption of them within our borders, the overpaying of teachers who are not high performers, the rewarding of CEOs with huge bonuses for tanking companies, the abuse of the welfare system, the awarding of a military contract after collecting only one bid, and the wasting of money on bureaucratic health care, then ask for more money.

Retirement, taxes and government spending: I’m still asking about the government’s plan, and I’m not the only one, see the next paragraph below. In yet another timely-read, for the purposes of this subtopic, Time magazine article- “The Big Bank Bailout: Are You Next?” by Bill Saporito, October 27, 2008, come these words- “If we are forced to increase savings, [to fund retirement and stem the tide of the recession] then spending has to drop, and that has ramifications for the stock market and the economy, because it implies we’ll buy fewer computers and take fewer trips.********** With consumers hard-pressed, it is the government that will have to do the spending. Both presidential candidates have proposed economic stimulus packages on top of the $168 billion stimulus Congress passed in early February [2009]. At some point, of course, the next President will have to either rein in that spending or raise taxes—or risk a historic budget deficit.” This is a role the government must be giddy with anticipation about. The article is primarily about the juxtaposition of people hoping to survive this recession without spending money they hope to save for retirement. These people lost money because of the financial market’s response to the extreme dumb-ass flu that has swept through the government for decades, but more particularly in the last decade where the government has seemed to have been inoculated against it, while being carriers to those who are less immune, like the taxpayer. It helps to be inoculated against it when you can ask the afflicted, (the taxpayer for almost $800 billion to remedy an illness of your own causing. Pro taxation people would probably ridicule people who had an irrational fear of crocodiles; but a fear of crocodiles is rational . . . if you are alive. As above, when I promised to get back to the unconstitutional comments, I will have more to say in this area (government waste).

Tax in Time: In yet another Time magazine article (from November 10, 2008, pg. 59) I read, in Justin Fox’s The Curious Capitalist, some speculation about where the government is most likely going to go to get a hand-out. Fox asks, “So who will pay those taxes?” He mentions that the highest earners- “almost all income gains in recent years have gone to the top 1%. But because the rich can afford good tax lawyers, there are diminishing returns to increasing their tax rates.” Also, “The share of pretax income going to the bottom 40% of households dropped from 20 % in 1980 to 15.9% in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and that decline has been counteracted only modestly by tax credits. [to the poor]” So, if taxing the rich is out because the government apparently cannot hire lawyers brighter than those the rich can hire, and taxing the poor is out because they don’t have any share of money to begin with, who is left? How about we just tax those in the middle class again? They keep voting for one of two space invaders anyway. That is precisely what Fox concludes, though his spin is that the government would tax those that make between $70-$250k, the broadly defined upper middle class- broadly defined to be sure. Quite an income grouping. Those who make $70k have virtually nothing in common with those that make $250k, I assure you. Also, as I’ve written before, (part 41 to be exact)*********** I recognize the danger of increasing the taxes of those who make between $200k-$300k AND own a small business and those who make that, or more, and don’t, because of the ramifications it can have on the small business employee, the employers chances of growing the business which is the essence of capitalism I would never want to constrain.

DETENTION OF THE DANGEROUS

Detention I: I only served one of these in high school- go figure. The heading of this paragraph concerns how certain zoo animals are detained. Consider, on your next trip to the zoo, the animals that are more sectioned off than the others. This provides a safe viewing environment for innocent children, dutiful parents and self-absorbed teens on their second date. This protection ensures we are safe from dangerous animals, and keeps the animals, some of them anyway, safe from us. The shark is encased in at least 6 inches of fortified glass, the bear is bastioned behind the same transparent wall of glass; the tiger is kept in a forested hold within walls, specialists familiar with the abilities of big cats have verified it cannot scale, the lynx prawls in a bored manner and monkeys swing or hang innocently behind fenced enclosures. All of these bulwarks are in place as safeguards for our enjoyment, for these animals, and thousands like them, would be a danger to us if allowed to roam free, kind of like your average pedophiliac. Oh, wait, we do let those guys out don’t we . . . bad analogy. Maybe we should release pedophiliacs into the enclosure of an eel or a snake or a gorilla and see what happens. But I digress.

Detention II: Likewise, other, more innocent, animals are kept behind fences. My family went to the zoo the other day, and along with seeing that the dolphin was kept within a pool of water, the goat behind a fence and the ostrich in a large open space, able to be seen, but far beyond any human’s reach, I noted how we have these protections in place to guarantee our safety, and if not guarantee, for there is always the chance that the power of nature will supercede the logic of man, or that a curious child will enter the domain of the meerkat and have its ankle bitten, then at least the fortifications are well considered. We have these animal garrisons in place for reasons like safety, or money (it would cost a lot to replace a panda), or money- (it would cost a lot to defend a lawsuit brought about because an elephant left to its own devices stepped on someone’s toe. This detention makes sense; it is reasonable. Even the two beta fish we brought home a few weeks ago, are separated in the aquarium because they are two males, the more beautiful of the beta fish species, and are highly likely to rip each other to shreds through some kind of genetic fish jealousy mandate- “my fins are bigger and more colorful than yours” type of thing. The packaging warns the beta fish shopper about this wild proclivity, arms them with knowledge they might not otherwise have had, kind of like when the government releases a pedophile, excepting this analogy also is not suitable for the government does so without the warning.

Detention III: Money-wise, the two fish, who were reported by the sales girl to be more exciting if purchased in tandem, cost me twice as much as one fish would have. I was set to by one, but the feature of how much of a flourish each male would swim with if paired with another was apparently a selling point with my wife. I relented and bought the two; good thing I got me that 1.5% raise and that Obamessiah tax credit. I didn’t buy two sharks, there are enough of those running the corporations we work for. But all of this animal kingdom stuff, the detention of unsafe sentient beings without the ability to blush in embarrassment because of what they’ve done, or what they’re capable of (i.e. animals), even the sexual predator animals kind of stuff got me thinking about the average taxpayer’s own life, his habitat, his relationship to his community, his predator-prey relationship with his representatives on all levels of government. (Note- the predator = the politician, remember the shark stuff above; do you think I just write everything accidenctally?) We have so many protections in place for animals and for us: zoo fortresses, leashes, warnings not to feed the ducks, deer crossing signs, beware of dog signs, Peta press releases, millions of books which would educate us on how to keep a whoot owl as a pet, but not a lot in the way of keeping us protected against political predators. I’ll get back to that theme eventually- next time- I have a lot of plates to spin.

Pig odor and swine flu: Certainly, my metaphors above are offal,************ I mean awful, and I cannot believe that less than two months after my chastisement of the omnibus bill’s pig odor study, that a hysterical (perhaps legitimately hysterical) fear of a potential pandemic called the swine flu gripped the imagination and the American psyche. If someone coughs a few times within a few minutes in a cube within earshot of mine I think of commenting on their having the swine flu and feel almost guilty of how negatively I portrayed the money that was allotted for an Iowa pig odor study- surely the two things are connected. According to a National Geographic article, “Egypt Killing All Swine” from April 30, 2009- “Even though no cases of swine flu have been found in Egypt—in pigs or Humans—the government has ordered an estimated 300,000-plus pigs slaughtered as a swine flu precaution . . . Unlike bird flu, where the flu strain that spread to humans was widespread in bird populations, the World Health Organization says there is no similar concern about pigs - and no evidence that people have contracted swine flu by eating pork or handling pigs.” So, I apologize for my work in mocking the pig odor study which would have saved the vast number of schools from being closed, from lame jokes at the office the instant someone sneezes, the common use of the phrase- “cover your cough,” the altered focus from a pig’s glycemic index, which is often indicative of their rotundity, and to the entire pork industry that is suffering a heavy financial loss. Too bad, we, as the voting public, can’t slaughter a few hundred thousand legislative maneuvers (pork barrel spending) that would save the taxpayer billions of dollars for lord knows what. Unfortunately, I don’t think that number of slaughtered proposals is going to be enough.

Note: I wrote about the swine flu when it was in full outbreak mode, before it had killed nearly five people. I have a lot of spinning plates- government waste as it equates to taxation, predatory politicians and their captivity, the free-market (still), the whole subtopic of taxation proper, and the unconstitutionality of just about everything from breathing through your mouth, fearing the wrath of diabetes for using drink boxes to potty train your daughter and five minute conversations about double-reed musical instruments.

______________________________________
* Parthenogenesis- a form of reproduction where a female gives birth without the fertilization provided by a male to the embryo.

** There is an approach to the tasking of work in many corporations called Agile, which requires the collaboration of employees in order to get the job done. Work/stories are written out on index cards, along with various development and testing cards associated with that story and all of the associated cards are kept in swim lanes. There are several sharks in this walk of life as well, some are project managers, or their bosses five levels up the food chain which continue to shift jobs overseas, defending such a maneuver by saying the words “free-market.”

*** In this clumsy, and thinly-veiled metaphor, the word ‘underseas’ should probably be used

**** My wage went up 1.5% this year- any chance that information alone would keep just ten illegals from coming to the United States? Some of that information, from June of 2007 is quite humorous. For the complete article see “The Case for Amnesty” by Nathan Thornburgh, June 18, 2007 (pgs. 38-42).

***** See- http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm for more on all kinds of border fencing costs, the number of apprehended immigrants, and the number that were not apprehended, and proposed and passed bills.

****** In Lou Dobbs’ most recent book- “Independents Day” he devotes another chapter to the overall effects of immigration. In the chapter titled “Crossing the Line” he has an immigration facts insert which addresses the topic of falling U.S. wages for American workers. He writes- “Construction workers made the same hourly rate as they did in 1965 (measured in 1982 dollars) . . . Wages have fallen by nearly 4% for landscaping workers . . . Landscapers are making the same hourly rate as they did in 1972.” The same thing is happening in more fields than just landscaping and construction.

******* This was essentially my jumping off point from which I’ve been able to show how many issues are turned against the viability of members of the present, and even more profoundly, the future economic middle class.

********(See- http://www.citypages.com/2009-04-29/news/westlaw-rises-to-legal-publishing-fame-by-selling-free-information/.)
********* And I thought the pig odor study being conducted by PEW Research was both fitting and funny. The connection between the reality of the employee wage situation in this country and the name of the research group doing the study produces something that is sad and stinks- (see part 45).

********** Which I most notably mentioned in part 5 (Paying to Live for Free), part 8 (The Price of Necessary Costs) and part 9 (Government Waste).

*********** I never thought I would have the occasion to reference that column. See paragraph 2) Fexofenadyne hydrochloride (Allegra).

************ Offal: waste parts of a butchered animal, most often their entrails and internal organs.

Middle Class Part 47: The Last Issue- Taxation, Chapter 1, A Brief History, Types of Taxes and More Fun with Hamilton

2009-04-19T07:56:00.008-05:00

I'm not sure where this overall topic will take me. For all I know, I could find that the amount we are taxed is appropriate considering the services provided by the government. Here goes nothin'.

SINCE LAST TIME . . .
We have celebrated easter and April fools day, watched Tiger Woods not win the Masters, I have read an Associated Press article about a two-nosed bunny (“2-Nosed Bunny Surprises Pet Shop Owner”, April 1, 2009), and the deadline to file our income tax returns has passed (appropriate sub-topic below); we have witnessed the crowning of a truly dominant NCAA college basketball team (Go Heels!), the rescue of an American captain from Somali pirates, the opening of the Hannah Montana movie that premiered at #1 for the weekend, and the bowing of a U.S. president to some Saudi king named Abdullah who probably has drawn a parallel between our fear that we are seeing the end of peak oil and a dish called no-peak chicken. Aren’t all Saudi kings named Abdullah? Sorry king- if our own president acts that penitent during easter week, there are far too many of us anxious to be irreverent willing to pick up the slack.

Name is not the same: A romp of otters, a school of fish, a herd of cattle, a stable of horses, a shoal of herring or tuna, a tower of giraffes, a pod of orcas or dolphins, a group of geese is called a flock, in flight they are called a skein, flying in formation they are called a wedge. There are many different names for a collection of one set of animals in nature. How this came to be so would involve me wasting weeks of research and the results may prove more entertaining and less obvious than the final sub-topic I have yet to cover- taxation. On a related topic, to the naming of animal groups above, is that, unfortunately, there have been many more varieties of taxation- from the necessary to the ridiculous, to the even more ridiculous.

TAXATION - A VERY BRIEF HISTORY

Egyptians: During one time period, tax collectors, known as scribes, imposed a tax on cooking oil. “To insure that citizens were not avoiding the cooking oil tax scribes would audit households to insure that appropriate amounts of cooking oil were consumed and that citizens were not using leavings generated by other cooking processes as a substitute for the taxed oil.” Since then, no scribe has made sure that a household's average Pam consumption is at or above acceptable levels or has decided that the cans which dispense this oil in a bottle are something that would promote the ozone's obesogenic nature (or is it nurture?).

America, present day: A 15% obesity tax on sweetened sodas was proposed by New York governor David Paterson to aid in a $15 billion budged deficit. (according to the New York Times- December 15, 2008 via a Lexicon short in Time December 29, 2008-January 5, 2009. How I could go for a New York governor prostitution scandal about now; where is Eliot Spitzer when you need him? Why this tax iis a bad idea- we have the right to drown ourselves in any variety of excess we see fit, so long as it does not impact others. People not aware of the difference (you conservatives who are ok with smoking in public should read more John Stuart Mill) To those who claim that the collective American obesity problem impacts other’s health insurance premiums I say, when we can enact improved, and meaningful, fossil fuel emissions standards and the conservatives can acknowledge the threat of climate change, we’ll start talking about increased health insurance premiums for the fatties. (Note- Hopefully that is plural for fatty.)

Greece: “In times of war the Athenians imposed a tax referred to as eisphora . . . When additional resources were gained by the war effort the resources were used to refund the tax.” What a novel idea. In Minnesota, rumors run rampant that we are still paying for the Metrodome and a convention center that have long since been built and have surely benefited someone, to the extent that living in Minnesota can really benefit anyone.

America, present day: “Council rejects idea of plastic bag tax” Dave Orrick, St. Paul Pioneer Press, December 4, 2008. Why this tax idea is a good one- our over-reliance on compartmentalizing everything by using a plastic bag at Walgreen’s to cart home one package of night-lites is wasteful, socially and environmentally irresponsible. In fact, it is socially irresponsible because it is environmentally irresponsible. Let’s not consider the future- that would be wrong. The only time the future generations of the inhabitants of this nation are considered should not be when we assume, they’ll assume our debt from all the borrowing our elected officials have been approving. We could stop being a liability to the world we live in any day now. Instead, there are probably some inventors trying to find the best way to mass market urinals for home use or those who are writing their one-millionth word in a blog saga that would blind a small epic poet while he was reading it.

Great Britain: In the 11th century- “According to legend, Lady Godiva's husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia, promised to reduce the high taxes he levied on the residents of Coventry when she agreed to ride naked through the streets of the town.” A progressive Poll tax on the Duke of Lancaster in 1377 “was 520 times the tax on the common peasant.” No word on whether that Duke was the first conservative. By the way, if Godiva was as smooth-bottomed as the top of the line chocolate which bears her name . . . yum.

America, present day: I just had an original thought . . . I paid a 7.5 cents on the dollar tax for it . . . it was about mice having sex with cheese- the government gave me a bailout because I am running out of good ideas. The sarcasm industry is in dire need of federal funds. I’ve been at this for about two years, so long that the number of news stories, political books, conversations with co-workers, exchanged emails with talk-show hosts or discussions with slippery conservatives that remind me of the liquid metal assassin from the second Terminator movie or liberal DINKs that feel empowered that a democrat is back in the white house, fills me with a feeling so near apathy I hardly know how to keep going. There is just too much material to dismiss and my supply of sarcasm is running low. I cannot possibly come up with something witty to write to downplay the rationale of all those I disagree with . . . silence! to those of you who think that I stopped being witty in part 1. (Note- DINKs- Dual Income No Kids.)

The talent of taxes: Because of taxes people have been beheaded or convicted of treason, tea has been poured into harbors, wars have been started, conducted and funded by a tax (the Civil War twice, among others), armies have been expanded, stadiums have been built, some aggressions known as the Whiskey Rebellion and the Fries* Rebellion have taken place, people have volunteered their wives to ride naked through the streets of Coventry, and the Constitution has been amended (16th amendment). About that last one- I know! I am as shocked as you are that the Constitution could be amended. And you see how well that amendment has gone for the good of government spending. How else is the government going to improve on that 19% we expect them to spend in the name of a healthy GDP- see part 45. Rhetorical questions are less expensive; question marks are spendy, thus taxed more and they are the granite countertops of the punctuation world.

My corporate America: “During the 1930's federal individual income taxes were never more than 1.4 percent of GNP. Corporate taxes were never more than 1.6 percent of GNP. In 1990 those same taxes as a percent of GNP were 8.77 and 1.99 respectively.” So, as a percentage of the Gross National Product, individuals have contributed six times more than they did 80 years ago and corporations have barely had their taxes raised at all in nearly 80 years. Shocking! Somewhat less so than if someone told me that hamster bacon were on sale this week at Cub foods.

The above historical taxation pieces are courtesy of- http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm. Course, I made up that stuff about hamster bacon . . . probably; I don't frequent the ethnic foods section.

TAXES TAXES EVERYWHERE

Types of taxes: tariffs (a tax imposed on goods moved across a political boundary)**, excise- (tea, tobacco, motor fuel, telephone usage, alcohol- goods produced within the country); direct taxes- such as capitation, head,*** property, or poll, i.e. indirect taxes), payroll taxes, income taxes, sales tax, too many framed photos tax, capital gains, death, excessive use of the stapler tax, inheritance, gas; pet snake tax, estate and gift taxes, license tabs, payroll tax, FICA tax (for the funding of social security)- this tax was increased during the Lyndon Johnson administration with the addition of Medicare; there have been things called fees, which semantically-brave**** governors, congressmen, presidents, city council people, airline industry and cable company executives and board members have wholeheartedly or feign-reluctantly endorsed.

Cable bill: There is a sales tax, franchise fee, PEG fee ($1.89), FCC fee (7 cents in March, 6 cents in December- apparently that went up); for the digital voice addition a couple of years ago there is a state sales tax ($2.69), a county sales tax (10 cents) and 911 “fee(s)” (65 cents). Apparently, this means there may be more than one fee- how would we even know and how would they remember?

Cell phone bill: Wireless surcharges and other charges and credits ($2.86), taxes, governmental surcharges & fees ($5.18), voice equipment ($3.50)- should someone be charged for this every month? A universal connectivity chg. – recurring (74 cents), regulatory recovery fees – recurring (13 cents)- can I agree to pay a regulatory fee for regulation of the legislature, elected politicians, the financial industry? Just go ahead and take that right out of my paycheck which may not be something that recurs a year from now. Regulatory recovery fees . . . that kind of sounds like reparations that should be made to the middle class for the lack of regulations on the free market.

Car insurance: installment fee ($3.50).

Mortgage: the property tax associated with a mortgage.

Electric: resource and tax adjustment ($10.34), state sales tax ($3.20), Dakota county transit tax 12 cents and something called a fixed charge $7. Good thing that isn’t a variable charge. Oh, the property tax is a variable charge.

Ticketmaster: I would not identify the right to purchase event tickets through Ticketmaster a necessary cost, one that every middle class citizen should be able to afford, (so this is a little indulgent) but can’t because of the cost of gas, cars, education, food, homes (mortgages or rent), health care, taxes, etc. Consider this and tell me if you think the free market should continue to go unregulated- “ . . .say you purchase a $35 ticket through Ticketmaster for an upcoming event, there could be a convenience charge of $8.35 (per ticket) in addition to a $3.15 order processing fee and $1.75 fee for an e-ticket. That adds up to a whopping 38 percent premium over the face value of the ticket price. Like any business, we have every right to seek a fair return on our investment and efforts," the company said in a statement.” Like every private citizen, I have the right to shove squid, afflicted with salmonella derived from their love of the leisurely consumption of pistachios down their throat? No?

More other taxes: There has been a Sugar Act, a Sugar and Molasses Act, a Stamp Act, a Townshend Revenue Act, the Revenue Act of 1913, the Earned Income Tax Credit (which subsidizes some of the worst decision-makers in the country, and rewards them for having more children than not only they, but the remainder of the country can afford). Lower rates for 18-month and five-year assets were adopted in 1997 with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which cut taxes by $1.35 trillion. Unfortunately, select members of the middle class are unaware how unbelievably fortunate this tax cut was for the rich, who clearly needed an economic break to rival the fortune of the whale-shark that swims around at the bottom of the sea consuming mass quantities of plankton simply because its mouth is always open. I wonder what the insurance premiums are for the underinsured contingent of the whale-shark shoal***** that report to their physician the repetitive stress injury of lock-jaw and how many conservatives would be against single-payer health care if it meant providing for one of its own.

Tax short: From a letter to the editor from the Minneapolis Star Tribune from some time in 2008- “ . . . for five of the last six years that Enron was in business, it did not pay any federal income tax. According to . . . [the] Nobel Prize winner for economics in 2001, corporations profited by 68 percent during the Bush administration era, while median household incomes were at negative 1 percent.” To the extent this is true, I hope there is a hell, and that there is an observation deck in heaven allowing people other than me the opportunity to watch evil people be 70 % more unlucky in the afterlife. I’ve decided that being more graphic than that would be unsuitable so early in this sub-topic. (Note: the Nobel Prize winner in economics- that sounds like an expert to me.)

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IS ENOUGH FOR THE HISTORY AND LITANY OF TAXES IMPOSED UPON A SOMEWHAT SUSPECTING POPULACE, BUT . . .

Yeah, you knew I was not done quoting from the Constitution annex, The Federalist Papers: Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 70, wrote- “Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes in their estimation an indispensable duty of self love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon, contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may in its consequences afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice in the human character.” (pg. 357, Hamilton #70)

My rebuttal directed toward the ass: What kind of "despicable frailty" is it when an elected representative consistently continues to ignore the requests of their electors to be more fiscally responsible than formerly? Many men, no matter how many hours they work are the most frail when they chase more and more money that has never seemed to flee from them. Being against a pig odor study or any of the 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus bill, as a responsible citizen, is not a “detestable vice.” Demanding accountability of our elected officials is not vanity; urging regulations of the free market and transparency of our government is itself a sign of a "benevolent temper" and requesting that government waste be chronicled for the sake of improving how much our nation’s citizens are taxed is not a mark revealing the “obstinacy of individuals.” A couple weeks back, American Idol host Ryan Seacrest explained that, in the interest of time, only two judges, rather than all four, would be sounding off on the performances of each singer, so that the program which followed AI could start at its normal time. It is too bad that the best example of American democracy comes from a reality show, where the most loyal viewers of a television program can complain about Fringe or House starting a minute or two later than scheduled. These are the types of people who put up yard signs on behalf of candidate X who is no better and no worse than his rival. He is just different in the same way. Shallow, hollow, stupid voters. I would call them sheep, but I do not mean to offend the lemmings who had seemed to be satisfied with being considered the most gullible member of the animal kingdom all to themselves. Man is so disappointingly predictable that sheep probably compare us with lemmings.

“Benevolent tempers”: The most obviously deficient among Hamilton’s retinue of characteristics, is benevolence. If this man were alive today, he might purposefully transport zebra mussels with Slapped Cheek Syndrome (i.e. Fifths Disease) to previously unaffected lakes, be determined to use metal spatulas on other people’s non-stick cookware and demand an accident forgiveness car insurance policy before proceeding to deliberately crash his car into others and pay witnesses to corroborate his side of the story. In the Star Wars world, a world my son entered 6 weeks ago, and is obsessed with, this man (Hamilton) is Darth Sidious. For those who are unlike my son, who put two Star Wars shirts on the other day when I asked him to get dressed, and may not know who that is, he is the guy who connived his way to the emperorship and literally made Darth Vader, the third best villain in the history of the cinema, according to AFI.

Remarkably consistent Hamilton: Our friend Mr. Hamilton, justifying why a cabal, a plurality of magistrates ought not share the highest office in the land (one occupied these 220 years by 44 different men- the president) writes that- “The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated, that where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable." (pg. 359, Hamilton #70) We are especially unlikely to “pronounce to whose account the evil . . . [may be] chargeable” if we cannot identify the lawmakers responsible, in that they do such a masterful job of protecting each other. Hamilton’s idea is to just treat this obligatory innuendo hot potato of governmental malfeasance as something for which no proof can be provided, and thus, there is no punishment to dole out. I realize he is writing to justify that just one executive shall hold office, but he happens to describe exactly what takes place within the halls and chambers of congress. If Hamilton were alive today, judging by his consistent inability to reason appropriately, he would probably defend the incredulous nature of physics as exhibited in the average Tom and Jerry cartoon.

This one is especially prescient: Again, Hamilton is writing speculatively about some misguided soul****** who might investigate a matter of some importance, so diligently so as to come to the undeniable conclusion that gross governmental irregularities have occurred (and will keep occurring), with the full participation of certain avaricious elected officials, and further, that members of at least two parties are in collusion with each other to act as czars overseeing the serfs they are elected to represent. Meanwhile the serfs/citizens fidget their way to some middle class oblivion where they are required (via some Freudian social acceptance theory) to build upon the illusory, yet palpable, Tower of Babel,******* where our collective complaints are measured, but go unheeded because everyone is talking, and no one is listening- not really anyway. Oh yes, Hamilton’s quote- “Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happen to be a collusion between the parties concerned, how easy is it to cloath the circumstances with so much ambiguity, as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?” (pg. 359, Hamilton #70) Indeed, and so much so that it would require more than 47 installments in order to flush out that ambiguity, using facts rather than conjecture, and reveal how moronic it is to vote for the status quo, no matter how brainwashed you are.

Federal government offices: Hamilton, in justifying the Constitution, had to, for immediacy’s sake, alleviate the fear detractors had over how much a new government would cost, in the short term certainly, but also in the long run. In this, Hamilton was anything but prescient. He refers to the present population and the likelihood that the population will continue to increase due to the number of representatives required to serve the people, according to the Constitution and asks rhetorically of those who fear the price tag of the proposed government- “Whence is the dreaded augmentation of expence to spring? One source pointed out, is the multiplication of offices under the new government. . . As to persons to be employed in the collection of the revenues, it is unquestionably true that these will form a very considerable addition to the number of federal officers; but it will not follow, that this will occasion an increase of public expence. It will be in most cases nothing more than an exchange of state officers for national officers.” (pg. 441 Hamilton #84) Not quite right as it turned out. Course, I thought bailing out the financial corporations and tying retirement money to the stock market for the purposes of eliminating social security was a good thing and we see how both of those have and will turn out, no accountability in the former example and no money for retirees in the latter- they both have a shared cause, the willful, and unaccountably ignorant trust of an unregulated free-market- that goes out to all of you little Darth Sidiouses out there. “Whence is the dreaded augmentation of expence to spring?” Are you kidding me? Mr. Hamilton, you are dead, I do not really expect for you to be able to answer that question. In fact, when I die, I plan on having a duel with you in hell with as many as several IRS agents in attendance.

TAX SEASON

Accountable I: There are baseball seasons, football seasons, the spring season, The Four Seasons (a high-end restaurant chain) and Four Seasons, (some rather famous classic music written by Vivaldi) and tax season. While team IRS is probably not undefeated, surely they have a Globetrotter-like record against their patsy, the middle class-like Washington Generals. If it is one thing the IRS is charged with, it is holding citizens accountable for paying their taxes in full and on time. However, their own accountability is less than assured to the citizen in return. Never mind the problem of immigrant and corporate taxes the IRS, as an entity, may fail to collect, there are certainly other government agencies to blame for that. My wife and I complete our taxes each year by using a software program called Turbo Tax. This year there happened to be a glitch in the program, or our AGI was otherwise transcribed by an IRS agent incorrectly and my wife spent three hours on the phone, getting redirected to other agents three times, none of whom completely allayed any of her anxiety about potential penalties for the filed taxes being late (as it was April 15th when we found out about their error). The AGI is another number the IRS uses to verify, that everyone is filing their taxes; the IRS can match up the most recent tax year with your filed taxes from the previous year and accountably ensure that everyone is filing. Never mind that your address, date of birth, size of your big toe, name, bank account number, the expected number of predominantly yellow teeth within your mouth by the age of fify, and the ITIN number- (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) and social security numbers are always also included on the form as a way to specifically identify particular delinquents or angels. If all of those numbers match from the previous year, why would you make someone spend two hours on the phone being transferred to multiple agents, none of whom are willing to admit that the error is the fault of the agency that employs them. Further, there seems to be a requirement that the IRS agent assigned to help when calls are transferred their way provide an identification number that my wife described as having been delivered so quickly in a couple cases she didn’t have time to write it down. In one case, my wife was transferred to a woman who gave her two different id numbers, one at the beginning of the call and one at the end. The average elephant seal does less damage to its environment when it hunts squid for sport than the average IRS agent does to our environment just by being less helpful and by not offering to pay us for assisting them in rectifying a situation that was caused by them.

Accountable II: To tie this back to Hamilton’s shortsightedness, where the number of federal employees that would be needed to conduct a federal government’s business is concerned, I bring you this very logical quote- “As to persons to be employed in the collection of the revenues, it is unquestionably true that these will form a very considerable addition to the number of federal officers; but it will not follow, that this will occasion an increase of public expence. It will be in most cases nothing more than an exchange of state officers for national officers. In the collection of all duties, for instance, the persons employed will be wholly of the latter description. The states individually will stand in no need of any for this purpose.” Really? Ladies and gentlemen, you read it here first, we may not be required to file a state income tax return in the future, for there will be no one interested in collecting our state income tax shortfalls. This was so written in The Federalist Papers, the majority of which was penned by Hamilton to defend the honor of the, at the time, yet to be ratified Constitution. I should think that Hamilton held his flourish (The Federalist Papers) meant to accompany, introduce, and protect the honor of the Constitution, in such high esteem, as if it were some knight errant meant to escort a celestial virgin (the Constitution) on its way to the castle in the sky ball.

Accountable III: I am not even going to deliberately hunt for any material about IRS agent fraud, conspiracy, mistakes, inaccuracies, etc. that might have cost/is costing/will cost the taxpayers money. Is that not assumed? The cost of that type, and other types, of belligerence, and I don’t want to under-exaggerate things here, is slightly more probable than a Swedish man being able to run the 100 yard dash in negative time or of Siamese Twins being born twelve days apart. I did a search on “how many federal government employees” and did not find an accurate total from some of the results. I hit upon a link to the NFFE- “ The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) is a national union representing 100,000 blue and white collar government workers across the United States.” So, there are at least that many federal employees. Hamilton writes- “Where then are we to seek for those additional articles of expence which are to swell the account to the enormous size that has been represented to us? . . . it can upon no reasonable plan amount to a sum which will be an object of material consequence.” (pg. 442, Hamilton #85) Hamilton is the type of snake-oil salesman (yes, there are types of snake-oil salesmen) that, after having collected a healthy supply of snake-oil from its own slithery form, would give away life insurance policies as christmas presents. His policies would reward those who owned two male beta fish, one that was named Ariel by his daughter, which will apparently have to go through gender reassignment surgery and the other which his son named Millenium Falcon.

Maybe the most important rhetorical question I have asked in my life: Defenders of the Constitution, and of Hamilton, might claim, in response to my insinuation above that it is preposterous to attempt to hold Hamilton accountable for how many, and how often, things have changed in the intervening 220 years since the Constitution took hold of this country. Those ardent constitutionalists would dismiss my point and the irreverent manner I use to advance it, and state that there is no way I can criticize a man for being unable to successfully predict how profoundly things have changed, how much more expensive the federal government was going to be than previously predicted by Hamilton, how much more our government would cost the taxpayer. My question would simply be- if the contents of the Federalist Papers, the secondary source document with 85 numbers, which was written for the singular purpose of defending the existence of the Constitution is outdated, couldn't the same be said of the document itself? Or, people just may not care.

The last of the Hamilton quotes, at least for now: “The result from these observations is, that the sources of additional expence from the establishment of the proposed constitution are much fewer than may have been imagined, that they are counterbalanced by considerable objects of saving, and that while it is questionable on which side the scale will preponderate, it is certain that a government less expensive would be incompetent to the purpose of the union.” (pg. 443, Hamilton #84) Yes, imagine how incompetent a government less expensive might be if one this expensive is this incompetent.

OBAMA’S TAX-CHALLENGED CORTEGE

Very taxing: president Obama has had some difficulty finding qualified candidates to head his various departments- “A third of the Senate voted against the nomination of Treasury Secretary Thomas F. Geithner because of his failure to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. Both Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Thomas A. Daschle and Nancy Killefer, Mr. Obama's choice to be the first "performance chief officer," withdrew their names” before the senate hearings for their potential confirmations “after admitting to past tax irregularities.” (See- David R. Sans, Washington Times- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/more-obama-appointee-tax-problems/) Also within that article- “A Senate committee abruptly canceled a confirmation vote for Labor Secretary-designate Hilda L. Solis Thursday amid fresh reports of tax problems involving the husband of the California congresswoman.” And then, at the end of March another headline presented itself- “Obama’s Health Nominee [Kathleen] Sebelius Reveals Tax Errors.” (See- http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53004X20090401.) Because of this year’s AGI******** tax slip-up (see above), the senate hearings for my confirmation to be the next head Tolerance of Rich Assholes Engineer might be cancelled. The former head of the Rich Assholes Tolerance team was the two-nosed bunny whose major accomplishment, after its stroke was to overlook the stench in Ames, Iowa, the site of the pig-odor study (see part 45). What, you don’t think a two-nosed rabbit would have to be tolerant to get passed the stench of pig feces?

Obama fan: A friend of mine, who voted for Obama, asked me if I was going to thank him for the middle class tax break that had been instituted, and would be left to each of our paychecks. Unfortunately, the savings are to sneak back into our paychecks over the course of the year, so as to be barely noticeable. And actually, the “tax break” is really just a trick with income tax withholding. The news is-

“Federal income-tax credits for middle- and lower-income households -- part of the $787 billion federal stimulus plan -- go into effect Wednesday. The so-called "Making Work Pay" tax credits -- in the form of reduced paycheck withholding -- offer $400 to individuals making less than $75,000 and $800 to married couples making less than $150,000 per year. The credits, which will show up in workers paychecks, will be phased out for those above the thresholds. Couples making $200,000 and individuals making $100,000 will not receive any breaks. The aim of the stimulus tax credits is to encourage stunted consumers spending.” (Denver Business Journal, April 1, 2009- “Middle-Class Income-Tax Credit Starts Wednesday”.) With a net income, after the tax "break" is in effect, of $3-$5 a paycheck, after social security, welfare, charity, and 401k $$ is withdrawn, I might be able to buy that pack of gum I've been saving for.

Another co-worker mentioned that this really is not a tax credit or tax break, but rather a way for the government to adjust taxpayer withholdings so that they get back their own money gradually throughout the year, rather than all at once. I don’t really see that as a tax credit and await the day when a guy who received a 1.5% raise who associates with those who can sniff out those types of governmental semantics will actually get a tax break.

Agents of the government: I am reminded of a quotation (shocking I know)- “So long as we love we serve; so long as we are loved by others, I would almost say that we are indispensable; and no man is useless while he has a friend.” – Robert Louis Stevenson Men may be admired, famous, friendLY, affable, proficiently human, even servilicious, but the average government agent comes as close to not meeting the requirements of indispensability as any other man that I could imagine. There are far worse complements.

_______________________________________
* This was not a skirmish fought over the rights of some French fries, whether they were crinkle cut or waffle.

** Which is not a tax that law abiding citizens, who want campaign finance reform, are allowed to collect from the two major parties that hide behind freedoms the founders never intended to grant. Talk about a political boundary- there is no way in hell Madison ever intended to protect the freedoms of billionaires interested in buying someone an election. I have a feeling that circumventing the collected will of the people was not something Madison had in mind. And I wish, when I become governor of New York, after I have my requisite sex scandal and try to institute my fat people tax on ho-hos that I will push for a vote on the Dumbass Tolerance Tax. If you annoy me and try to pretend that as a politician you are doing well when the overwhelming (or just the whelming) evidence suggests otherwise, you will have to pay me a tax. Hey, I have to recoup my smartass taxes somehow. That whale-shark stuff went over too well.

*** In which, people are not taxed for having a head. This is a strange name for two taxes listed consecutively- capitation and head, which, one could joke, might be a tax on someone’s head being re-affixed to their neck.

**** Fees are the red-headed step children of their pristine-blooded tax forbears. Some mid-western governors (think Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty) have used the word “fee” as a sly alternative to “tax” and must think no one has access to a poor man’s thesaurus we carry around in our heads. Perhaps Pawlenty thinks we are children who won’t eat something until it is called by another name. My son did not eat clementines one morning until I call them oranges, and it seems as if the reverse was true a couple weeks ago. It isn’t a power struggle, at least not in this case (with my son), despite how unreasonable it is. We should not desire for our elected officials to call something by another name in order to get us to swallow it, or for that matter, to have multiple names for the same thing when one will do. The two most inevitable things in life- are death and taxes, not death and fees.

***** I have done zero research on what a group of whale-sharks are called. I can speculate that a group of politicians seeking to increase the progressive tax or those that complain about restricted CEO bonuses, salaries and golden parachute packages are a group of assholes and/or bitches- depending on their sex and whether they fly down K Street in wedge formation.

****** That would be me.

******* I’ve already mentioned this incoherence and powerlessness due to our even further becoming a melting pot of a country, from heritage/culture, language, social status, and ethnic background standpoints in parts 12, 24, and 37. I thought I better do it again for old-time sake.

******** Not to be confused with AIG- I thought I would clarify. Those with dyslexia- just move on, unraveling this level of transposed letters could cost you an entire weekend. But, you’re probably still working on it.

Middle Class Part 46: AIG, Farting and Contractual Obligations

2009-03-29T06:52:00.003-05:00

“What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.”- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Not comparing myself to Emerson in any way, but the sentiment stands. He wrote essays about nature and transcendentalism, and I write . . . hm, what would you call this?

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Best laid plans: I had planned on delving right into the topic of taxation as the final piece that comprises the middle class’ anxiety about their progeny’s economic place in this country. I realized during a conversation with advocates for the poor and the rich that I needed to add a few more paragraphs to the subtopic of the free market, bonuses, global economy, etc.

Advocate of the rich I: . . . stated many of the same predictable things that rich advocates always say when defending the free market and minimizing anyone’s call for regulations that inhibit the irresponsible nature of 21st century financial maneuvers, whether by banks or other financial institutions or stock market mavens. His point- that the market was performing exactly how it should have, in that it was failing and it would have filtered out those who cannot adequately perform their jobs. To him, no government bailout was needed if business is to be conducted as usual in the free market. I would note, and did add to the advocate for the poor, that the traditional conservative’s epitome of a free market overlord is former federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan who was quoted by everyone, from vindictive liberal columnists to conservative apologists, to an ignorant Spanish Ibex when he was shocked by the events that were taking place in our economy- “Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.” The devotees of the rich, in hindsight, may disparage Greenspan’s reputation all they want. This- let’s call it testimony- does not help your case considering that- “For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side.” The title of the article which contains both quotations- “Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation” written by Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times, October 23, 2008. (See- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html) Whether Greenspan sold out to the government and agreed to say such things as a way of convincing the public to support a bailout remains to be seen. (Note: His words may actually have caused me to think that bailing them out was a necessary evil, but that regulations and accountability should be built into subsequent financial industry agreements/contracts in the future- or the bailout need not happen- see part- ?? How the hell should I know. I've written so many pages on this topic so far that Austrailia's blue-tongued skink is tired of it.)

Advocate of the rich II: See footnote * below, but also keep in mind that Obama is not the only one blaming the talented financial industry workers for playing a major role in causing our economic mess (he mentioned this as a primary cause for our economic mess on both 60 Minutes and during his March 24, 2009 press conference)- that would be a kind of urban legend that someone believes and then disseminates to coworkers at a happy hour. Obama was probably briefed and then delivered that assessment after industry insiders had made it common knowledge. Consider this, from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (from March 17, 2009) “I live in Montgomery County, Md. The schoolteachers here, who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed to for next year, saving our school system $89 million — so programs and teachers would not have to be terminated. If public schoolteachers can take one for schoolchildren and fellow teachers, A.I.G. brokers can take one for the country.

“Let’s not forget, A.I.G. was basically running an unregulated hedge fund inside a AAA-rated insurance company. And — like Madoff, who was selling phantom stocks — A.I.G. was selling, in effect, phantom insurance against the default of bundled subprime mortgages and other debt — insurance that A.I.G. had nowhere near enough capital to back up when bonds went bust. It was a hedge fund with no hedges. That’s why taxpayers have had to pay the insurance for A.I.G. — so its bank and government customers won’t tank and cause even more harm.” (See- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1.) If this was not a leading component of our economic problems, a symptom, a cause, whatever, but our moral sense of right and wrong should become more healthy by consistently reminding us of the difference between right and wrong and compelling us to demand restitution for those obviously guilty of having done the latter, particularly when it harms an entire country of people and a number of people around the world that I was not aware America had become contractually obligated to assist.

Never trust a fart: A student was suspended for farting on a bus in Florida last week and in the article that relates that news is included a sentence about a 13-year-old student that “was arrested in November after authorities said he broke wind in class.” Really, kids are getting punished for farting, a sometimes involuntary (non pig odor type) of air quality infringement and we can’t punish those who deliberately did so much wrong that it registers in the mind of the mouse-like jerboa of the Gobi Desert that has been preoccupied with a fight against its insurance company trying to get them to consent to pay for the somewhat elective stilt-leg reduction surgery. (For the gas passing story- see “Student Suspended for Passing Gas on Bus” Associated Press, March 23, 2009.)

Advocate of the poor I: The advocate for the poor is an extremely intelligent contractor whose point was that in a global economy if the United States is to have so much capital it is going to have to float more boats, that the poor want a piece of the puzzle and will displace American workers in order to do it. Hard to argue with the desires of the poor, but it is easy to tell someone, even if their altruism quotient is as high as my co-worker’s, to ask for some reciprocity from the rich, to ask those getting the AIG-style bonuses to sacrifice rather than someone who is about to receive a 1.5% salary increase, or to forget that the poor’s raised standard of living is something our American grandchildren will have to pay for. It should be stated that my co-worker had the poor of the greater world in mind when he mentioned those thirsting for a better life and not the poor of this country. Until we can get our own house in order we will not be able to assist all comers, even should they do us the favor of taking our jobs. If the wasteful spending does not put more money back into the hands of everyone, including the rich, then the rich, some of whom are so rich they have mud rooms in their RVs, should be taxed more. I’ve written this many times, as far back as part 5. The poor of all nations expecting America to save them from this global economic hell, would do well to remember how tiresome it is be told that because of an allowed global competition for jobs (in America), the world’s eager poor are capable of stealing millions more middle class jobs than they already have. And I say stealing, because the greedy corporate executives, are complicit in their handing over our country to workers of other nations- “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – Abraham Lincoln. Which way are we choosing? We couldn’t be any more conscious of our decision than if we were leaning over a pool of water to refresh ourselves knowing that it was filled with mature crocodiles.

Advocate of the poor II: It goes without saying that the executives should be stripped of their healthy bonuses, no matter how talented they think they are. I told the advocate of the poor to start there. He and I discussed the nature of risk v. reward financial markets. My point would be that for too long, sans regulations, those in the business of controlling everyone’s retirement accounts have gotten ten times the benefit from investor collateral; financial industry employees have enjoyed plenty of reward with little risk, relatively speaking. One thing I would add to the advocate of the poor, and to the rich for that matter, as the poor (however, not even those that reside in this country) have been benefiting by the decisions made by the rich, who are moving middle class jobs overseas- the migration of jobs overseas has got to stop, and the poor’s climb** into the middle class cannot be made at the expense of those who are already there and have worked hard enough to stay.*** It seems a paper in “Pasadena, Calif. Dismissed its writers and outsourced its reporting to Pakistan (amusing, yes; joke, no), it saved overhead and became irrelevant.” (See John Olson’s article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Opinion Exchange section- OP1 and OP4, March 15, 2008.) When I get rich, I plan on outsourcing back-stabbed knife extraction to the Martians; they’ll be cheaper than Guatemalans and Pakistanis because I can probably pay them in bottled oxygen, to be had at a reduced rate if purchased in bulk, if the mixture is laced with pig odor stench.

AIG

AIG: I’ve read plenty and enough about the AIG $165 million bonus scandal. I’ve read columns about how Washington must act on the bonuses and be a wrongdoing arbitrator, why they can’t do anything about the bonuses, and heard that AIG is going to have to change its name in order to allow it to successfully do business in the future. I wonder why snakes haven’t thought of this. I’ve heard that trying to pass legislation that requires the bonuses be returned is unconstitutional. Make it Constitutional! Perhaps the most ridiculous reason given for the greedy to keep their bonuses is that it is contractual. One Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, whose article appeared in the March 20, 2009 Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Opinion Exchange section has chosen this logic. Oh, she makes the same arguments about not jeopardizing the incomes of those who would help us fix the mess we’re in, but goes a couple of steps further. In the article, I saw for the first time- how columnists and writers could make the word “populist” into a word with negative connotations. Yeah, lord forbid that the public demand accountability from those with financial control security clearance. Marcus writes that we are a country of laws and cannot legislate retroactively, that “federal legislation explicitly states that compensation limits for companies receiving bailout funds do not apply to preexisting contracts.” Why would that be? Have we bailed out the financial sector so often that a standard contract has been decided upon, with our input, who are one-half of the consenting parties? I love it- who invented sarcasm anyway?

AIG and athletics: Contracts are torn up, violated, and infringed upon all of the time. The main thing is to get such weighty concerns, such as $750 billion in bailouts, right. I am so confident of my thinking here that I am not even going to spend the 2-3 hours of research looking for supporting arguments. One occurred to me just naturally. While this scandal did not help produce a recession and does not involve federal legislation . . . George O’Leary accepted the position of head football coach at Notre Dame. “A few days after being hired” –there is no doubt that the hiring of a head football coach at Notre Dame involved a contract between the university and the coach, he was fired for things that rather remind me of the types of lies and antics that our AIG pariahs have become famous for. O’Leary claimed he “had earned a master’s degree” from a non-existent university and claimed he earned varsity letters for football from a school for which he had never played a game. O’Leary’s net impact on the wider world- 0, AIG’s- considerably more. Ultimately, if you don’t hold up your end of the bargain for reasons that are the epitome of delinquency and greed then the spirit of , and the law behind, contractual obligations is going to have to change. Sports contracts have plenty of clauses that address a player’s limitations away from the playing field. If he is injured riding a motorcycle, surfing, tests positive for a performance enhancing drug, or manages a fjord pony and dugong at an all nude burlesque show, the terms of their contract have been violated and the team that is paying him for participating, can withhold payment- legally. Those terms are written into the contract. And with that, I imagine that O’Leary’s contract included a clause whereby if he was found to have lied on his resume, he could be fired. Those who would mock an apparent lack of pertinent examples will always seem to miss one very valuable piece of oversight common to all sports and missing from Washington (politics) and New York (the Mecca of finance) . . . populism. Heh, just kidding- see what I did there- just one small step in the making of a word into a derogatory term. No, the word I am thinking of is- officiating.

Contractual: I am tired of the least common denominator citizens of this country hiding behind what is or is not written into contracts. Home improvement contractors hide behind an obligation to pay on the part of the homeowner for inferior craftsmanship; Michael Vick still got $20 million from his previous employer, the Atlanta Falcons, though he was operating a dog-fighting ring out of his home, is sitting in federal prison and hasn’t played a game in two years; Stephon Marbury, of the New York Knicks, refused to play in a game and sulked on the Knicks’ bench for the majority of the 2008-09 season and still raked in the vast majority of his $21 million salary after being fined at least twice, once for refusing to play in a game. Don’t offer that a contract’s major included stipulations must be adhered to as it is always what is not included that most derails this society's sense of decency and the insubordinate’s rationale for not conducting business in a professional manner. With a lack of oversight that egregious, what is unaccountably missing can be a bigger problem than what is included. Someone defending those for whom Dante must have reserved their own circle of hell (ok, well, then one they will be sharing with the bed-wetting capybara) ought to know better.

It’s Jurassic: A Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park is the most morally pertinent way of ending this exacting portion of the overall topic. When the scientists visiting the dinosaur park had the chance to sit down to discuss the reality of what they had just seen with the man who had funded that level of creation and future carnage and whether moneybags should have done such a thing as genetically reintroduce dinosaurs into the world, Goldblum’s chaoticianous character (one that proclaims the plausibility of chaos theory) had this to say to the financier- “You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.” Phrased another way by us- 'made to feel guilty about taking back bonuses that never should have been paid out' bastards, I might change the phrasing and deliver the message to those who think it is unconstitutional and in poor manners to circumvent an apparent business dealings commandment about contractual agreements- “You have been so preoccupied with whether or not you shouldn’t you haven’t stopped to think if you should.” I am no chrisitian, but there is a place for morality which will always supersede the terms, or lack of them, in a contract signed by the devil.

____________________________________
* See- “AIG Firestorm Raises Alarm for Other Firms” by David Cho and Binyamin Appelbaum, Washington Post, March 18, 2009. In the article this paragraph appears: “The attack by lawmakers on AIG pay has provoked renewed complaints from some financial company executives that federal involvement in business decisions is making it difficult for struggling firms to return to profitability. In particular, executives say they need to offer bonuses to keep and motivate their most valuable employees and are already seeing an exodus of talent.” Two things- 1) where will they go if they are not feeding like leeches off of the toil, measured in dollars, of others; 2) is the same talent, those who apparently will be going on hiatus from bilking the consumer . . . are those the investors and financial magnates who got us into this mess in the first place? I’m confused . . . how is talent defined in the financial world? If the answer to that first question is yes . . . oh the options for a response are endless- here is one: I would rather brush the teeth of an annoyed hippopotamus with my eyelashes than reward executives or the financially “talented” with a bonus or a job. Would the “talented” financial employees be the ones insuring worthless derivatives and sacrificing real, measurable long-term growth? If I screw up at work I am reminded by some complete bitch of a software developer; if a talented financial industry employee screws up he is paid a retention bonus. To paraphrase president Obama, from a March 22, 2009 60 Minutes interview, those “talented” employees may need to take a step out of New York every once in awhile in order to get a dose of reality for their undiagnosed case of ego-centrism. I added the medical verbiage. Also within that article is further proof of a sickness only morally bankrupted, co-dependent accounting division employees would understand- wanting to pay “retention bonuses to keep employees who are unwinding its Financial Products division” over at AIG. Also, “A senior executive at one of the nation’s largest banks said he had heard from several hedge funds that they would not partner with the government for fear that lawmakers would impose retroactive conditions on their participation, such as limits on compensation or disclosure requirements.” And I had heard from a hedgehog, the runt of its litter, with a severe brain malfunction, that has not yet been tied to the inhalation of pig odor (see part 45) that is bright enough to require retroactive conditions such as compensation caps and disclosure requirements be put in place. A hedgehog is appropriately named considering that the investment managers can, should they be allowed to by a lack of government interference, trade commodities and debt, etc. and can creatively account for a very wide range of activities- in essence hog the capital produced by the hedge fund.

Coincidentally, a hedgehog’s SOP would be to perform a set of maneuvers that are virtually indistinguishable from the talented financial markets investor, or CEO of a major corporation, who has received word that their president, and others, have requested they return a bonus they never earned, and which the taxpayer who has gathered a 1.5% raise has helped fund, from bailout money that never should have been paid to them- “Hedgehogs occasionally perform a ritual called anointing. When the animal comes across a new scent, [such as a potential regulating agency, government entity or a fed up public] it will lick and bite the source and then form a scented froth in its mouth and paste it on its spines with its tongue. It is not known what the specific purpose of this ritual is, [it has been speculated that they do not like the aforementioned emasculation] but some experts believe anointing camouflages the hedgehog with the new scent of the area and provides a possible poison or source of infection to any predator that gets poked by their spines.” (Source- Wikipedia- with some embellishment.) The "new scent" component of this activity is not unlike what a former industry giant, such as AIG, might do to hide the trail of tears it has caused- something like planning on changing its name, which new AIG head Edward Liddy has the intention to do, as he mentioned in front of the collected enablers at the House Financial Services hearing last week.

** An ascendancy, that to be clear, is enjoyed by the poor of other nations and not this one.

*** Which of course, as I have stated several times since I started this topic, only takes into consideration those in the middle class that do not overcharge their credit card, buying or financing homes, cars, boats, televisions, video gaming equipment, clothing and other belongings they cannot afford.

2009 NCAA Tournament Special

2009-03-18T22:08:00.005-05:00

“We, who look on with critic eyes
Exempt from action’s crucial test,
Human ourselves, at least are wise
In honoring one who did his best.”
- James Russell Lowell

While Lowell certainly could not have imagined the annually incongruous judgments of coaches, analysts, sports talk show hosts and NCAA college basketball tournament selection committees, his words seemed appropriate for introducing the subject matter which follows. Not one committee has gotten everything right since I started following which teams were invited to the big dance, and which were forsaken, back in the mid 1980s, when I had far less hair growing from my ears. The last line in the quote above should be applied toward the committee’s decisions in this respect- they tend to include some undeserving teams (often from major conferences- that perhaps have not performed their best) and by that, they are not honoring those that have performed more capably, all things considered, (as is the case with some teams from mid-major conferences). Of the at-large teams invited to the tournament, 30 are from the former group and only 4 from the latter. While this is a problem some might have with this year’s selected teams, it does not concern me as much as some other noteworthy items which cause me to think that the committee and the experts rather enjoy being controversial, if only to provide the sports fan with things to talk about which rival their BCS-loving football counterparts, who refuse to institute a college football playoff system.

To be sure- the list of things the expert-cooperative (coaches, analysts, talk show hosts and selection committee) get wrong does anything but honor those who did their best. The committee, that hardly ever throws anything away, decided to keep Arizona in the field. I visited my mom the other day. She owns a pink throw pillow that is so old it has varicose veins. Arizona was handed its 25th consecutive invitation to the big dance, despite going 9-9 (tied for 5th in a PAC-10 conference so watered down, the pop dispenser at Taco Bell would be proud). That pillow, which is supposed to be an article of leisure, is so hideous it looks like a ravioli cooked so long the beef has escaped. Note to the selection committee- maybe it is time to put together a field of participants in order to honor them for having done their best (to paraphrase Lowell) and with that, you will have done your best as well. Imagine a person exhausted by the day's events, who lays down on the couch to find that the only "comfortable" place to lay their head is the pink pillow that meets the description above. Across the room is a far more suitable pillow-candidate, but this person has no energy left to get up to get the pillow. Do you know what the pink pillow is . . . yep, Arizona.*

TALK THE TALK

The only thing worse than nearly two months of speculation about which bubble teams most deserve to be selected to participate in the NCAA tournament, is the 24 hours after the tournament field has been finalized.

The potential criteria decided upon by a selection committee, and speculated upon by everyone from president Obama, who filled out a dry erase board bracket, to a cave full of bears that just woke up from hibernation, is exhaustive in its scope and frustrating in its fiatness- about as frustrating as when all of the hot women are voted off of American Idol. The committee, we have been told by our 1000 pundits of the roundtable, lock themselves in a conference room for the weekend to deliberate upon the worthiness of the 34 at-large selections, that for the most part, are battling for the right to be the last teams to be sacrificed to the 1 seed in each regional. Consider the criteria, enumerated below, which I may or may not have taken the liberty to embellish. Each piece of fact has an element of cognitive dissonance associated with it, and is beloved by certain members of the college hoops elite, with more attention to detail and identifiable reverence than Indiana Jones had for the stone fertility idol at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The chairmen of each committee has normally been uncomfortably interviewed by Jim Nance and Billy Packer (of CBS), just minutes after all of the tournament seedings are revealed and always seem to have made drastic mistakes that could cost some teams their tournament lives by giving them one seed lower than the respective coaches might have desired. That was sarcasm. Thankfully, I missed the waterboard-like selection committee chairman interview this year.

The potential seedings are deliberated upon for hours upon hours and days upon days on ESPN’s or CBS’ pundit-based halftime shows. Each expert/pundit and each year’s version of the selection committee has their own set of standards (and sometimes an agenda) that equates to one team being considered more worthy than another with about the same resume. The qualifications for promotion in some businesses are almost this difficult to follow. The rationale each committee, from year to year, and each pundit, from day to day, uses to determine which teams are more worthy wears me out; not even MapQuest can give such pathetic directions. At base level- the discrepancies are not unlike any of those that men have had disagreements about since the invention of the rock, or at least since blue-tooth technology. My children, who have not yet reached the age of reason, have more meaningful discussions about whose highly valued miniature stuffed Goofy doll, that came from the Apple Jacks box, is theirs to keep forever. (Note: when I say discussions, I mean that my son takes the highly valued prize and runs away from his sister before I realize what he's done.)

WE ARE WORTHY

Without further ado- for those teams vying for the 34 at-large bids, the criteria some people might use to defend/justify one team’s inclusion, and another team’s exclusion from the tournament (in no particular order):

1) RPI- Ratings Percentage Index - 1/4 (Winning Percentage) + 1/2 (Opponents' Average Winning Percentage) + 1/4 (Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage);

2) SOS- Strength of Schedule- the ranking of the strength of a particular team’s schedule is determined by how many of their opponents have been worthy and how many have been unworthy opponents. Defeating a respected 24-7 team, from a power conference, says more about a particular team’s NCAA tourney preparedness than defeating a 19-14 team from a conference that is deemed not as strong;

3) Strength of a team’s non-Conference schedule;

4) The physical appeal of one team’s cheerleaders (particularly UCLA's), compared to another's that just has a male jumping around in a razorback (i.e. pig) costume;

5) Road victories;

6) Record the last 12 games; (in vogue for the 08-09 season);

7) Whether one coach was slighted for the Academy Award for best director a decade ago and the committee may choose this season to make amends. Wait, that is an existing problem with the American Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Sciences, (i.e. the Oscars);

8) A coach’s total number of ego-stretch marks which are not a by-product of Dick Vitale’s brown-nosing (see below);

9) Record the last 10 games; (in vogue for seasons prior to the current season);

10) Whether the team's total number of wins is 20 or more and if that number is divisible by muskrat;

11) Record vs. common opponents;

12) Conference record;

13) How badly one team beat up on Little Sisters of the Poor;

14) 6 degrees of separation logic; let’s say Louisville, a #1 seed, played Virgina Tech, a non-conference opponent, on a neutral sight, and lost by 5; that same Virginia Tech team lost to Michigan on the road, Michigan lost to Utah at home, Utah lost to McNeese State Technical College who beat Ray Charles School for the Sight Impaired by 2. Now RCSFTSI can insinuate that they are tournament worthy as they can trace that season’s result-lineage all the way up to some kind of putridly derivative Louisville underachievement which is uncharacteristic of their overall body of work. The Imperial Stormtroopers dispatched to Tatooine didn’t do as serviceable a job tracking two droids to Uncle Owen’s dwelling in Star Wars;

15) The coach of the 19-13 Arizona Wildcats justified their inclusion in the tournament because they beat 3 conference champions- Washington (4 seed), Gonzaga (4 seed) and Kansas (3 seed). All of these games were at Arizona. If you make a statement like that it is best to include that you defeated Louisville, North Carolina or Michigan State in your supporting argument. That piece of information should not be the sole criteria used to justify your selection. Arizona had a 9-9 conference record, lost in the first round of their conference tournament; went 1-5 to finish the season; they had non-conference wins against Florida Atlantic, Mississippi Valley State, Santa Clara, Northern Arizona, Loyola Marymount and San Diego State- teams that may, MAY, appear in the NCAA tournament a combined 7 times in 14 years;

16) The team has a coach with great tournament success; I heard a talk show host mention this was the only reason that Tubby Smith's Minnesota Gophers got in; (16A- beat Louisville on a neutral court and hope that they win the Big East conference and Big East tournament). For those who don't know- Minnesota did that this year. I'll cross reference this one to #s 1 and 14. Rooting for teams that you had previously beaten is commonly done if you want to ensure your place in the field;

17) A team has a major player with an injury that would impact his team’s performance, or the player just came back from injury and shot 6 of 20 in two games prior to selection Sunday (ala Patty Mills and St. Mary’s- who were not invited to dance);

18) A certain team had close losses to teams from major conferences, in road games that began after 5 p.m. where the PAID attendance was more than 11,500, and the court had fewer than 2 swastikas accidentally emblazoned on the parquet floor;

19) Two coaches from the Big Ten conference, a conference with 11 teams, justifying that 8 teams from the Big Ten should be selected. Shockingly, they responded in the affirmative when asked if 8 teams should be invited, because it always makes sense to reward 3-5 teams with nearly identical conference records, none of whom really distinguished themselves more than a mid-major team with some key road performances and a dominating record in their conference, despite the fact that its conference was more deficient than the Big Ten- if that is even possible. I could see a scenario where two hours later, one of the two coaches referenced above, finding no invitation to the tournament, attempts to justify why his team should be in and the team he just made a case for should be out. Only in politics and in the mating habits of jellyfish does hypocrisy run as rampant. Jellyfish have no brains. That species being able to show devotion is just not in the cards.

HOME COURT ADVANTAGE

North Carolina, a number 1 seed, and Duke a #2, will both play first and second round games in Greensboro, N.C. I do not agree with the way the selection committee places teams that are already head and shoulders above their opponents within the friendly confines of their own state.** All teams should be made to leave their own state, so as to eliminate the advantage of proximity to their campus. Villanova will be playing its first and second round games in Philadelphia and Ohio State in Dayton, Ohio. People will say that it is better to keep teams close to home for a fan following, because more tickets will be sold and that tells me that the NCAA cares about money; money and integrity are mutually exclusive. Perhaps, in this economy, a fan-base that might ordinarily drive 49 miles to Greensboro (in the case of UNC fans), or take a long weekend to drive from North Dakota to Minneapolis (which is where NDSU will be playing in the first round) wouldn’t do so for financial reasons if their team was shipped out west. If this was the first season the committee mandated a home court advantage, (considering the economy) that might make some sense. Getting shipped out West is exactly what happened to Connecticut, the most eastern of any of the teams that might remotely have been considered for a no. 1 seed. In defense of the selection committee, there was not a team worthy of consideration as a #1 seed west of the Mississippi, so someone (Louisville, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, or Connecticut) was going to need to travel. And it is not the committee's fault that only 6 of the top 20 teams (as judged by the committee) are west of the Mississippi. It just simply is not fair to make inferior teams from eight states away travel to the lion’s den of a team that apparently does everything better than they do except travel well. This makes less sense than providing a traffic report at 4 a.m. . . . to a balloon-loving earthworm in touch with its feminine side. This is easier than one might think- keep in mind that earthworms have both male and female reproductive parts.

HOME COURT ADVANTAGE II

Two years ago, the coach of the Syracuse Orangemen (Jim Boeheim) complained about being left out of the tournament. I am surprised I cannot remember exactly his rationale because I heard him whining on just about every sports talk radio show on the air. I believe he cited reasons like the toughness of conference opponents, the Orange’s record in conference (10-6), that no Big East conference team had ever been left out of the tournament when they had achieved 10 conference victories, their record against non-conference opponents, etc. The team may have left the state of New York twice during the non-conference schedule- I tried to find that on the net- to no avail. In hindsight Mr. Boeheim, maybe you would have wanted to step up the competition and not be such a travelophobe. I include this paragraph because at least one coach per year uses this complaint. This excuse is more unchanged than a cartoon character's shirt.

BELONGING

Every coach that is interviewed by CBS sports or ESPN thinks his team is worthy of being included in the tournament and feels they should be given a higher seed than they have received considering their “body of work” a common refrain among coaches with some of the most delusional qualities you will ever come to find. When asked if his team deserved a #1 seed, Memphis coach John Calipari said (to paraphrase) yes, but the committee has been good to us. If there were upsets the committee would have made some mistakes. John, your basketball coaching abilities are impressive, but have you not paid attention to this tournament in the last 30 years? Next you will tell me that Leprachaun venison is not worth the time it takes to prepare. There are upsets, the tournament is famous for them- N.C. State in '83, Villanova in '85, Kansas in '88, Arizona in '96 and those are just the teams that one the tournament. There may be a few factors involved in a college basketball game that more noticeably determine the outcome than a group of men deciding which seeds certain teams should be. After all, the games are not played on paper. These factors that happen to determine the outcomes of games- field goal percentage, rebounding, defense, turnovers, players fouling out or getting injured, foul shooting, luck, skill, referees***and a coach deciding not to call a timeout in the last moments of a game to prevent your opponent from hitting a game-tying 3-pointer (ala the Memphis v. Kansas title game that you, John, coached in last season).

DICKY V

One very memorable college basketball personality (Dick Vitale) apparently thinks the games are decided by the coaches. He brings up Jim Calhoun (UConn coach), Jim Boeheim (Syracuse coach), or Coach K (Duke coach) as factors in determining which teams will advance given a scenario where eight teams remain; perhaps Thad Motta’s (Ohio State coach) assist-to-turnover ratio is a relevantly kept statistic somewhere, or Bill Self's ability to shoot dimes from the mouths of weasels (while not harming the weasel) that sit atop the backboards at Allen Fieldhouse will inspire Kansas to the Elite Eight. Vitale mentioned virtually nothing about this team’s defense, that team’s height advantage, depth or free-throw shooting, or another team he sees advancing that might have a lot of backcourt experience. I love Dick Vitale’s energy, his spirit and his knowledge of the game. He just can’t stop talking about how talented the coaches are. Sorry, but the average college basketball fan cares about the players, rivalries, passion and sweat (and not the kind of sweat you can find dripping off of Bruce Pearl’s sport-coat) rather than how many consecutive conference tournament semifinals a coach has gotten their team to.

SURVIVE AND ADVANCE

The prediction component of each ESPN or CBS panelist is always very interesting. They know their sport, and while each panelist may come to a different conclusion about who is in and who is out of the tournament, they also have different ideas on who can survive and advance to the final four and which teams have a chance to win the whole thing. They know far more about the participants than I do, but it is their job and they get to spend their days researching which Big Sky conference tournament runner-up beat the SEC champion on a neutral floor and therefore justify the slight of a mid-major conference candidate that is left out of the field in favor of an also-ran from a major conference. According to Jay Bilas- Connecticut has a chance to go all the way because of a dominant inside force- Hasheem Thabeet. Bilas, to paraphrase, said that he’s a player that no other team in the tournament has. This is really very good information. I am pretty sure that a player cannot play for two teams at the same time- that might be an NCAA rules violation or something. Pundit, committee, fan, coach or talk show host- there are plenty of NCAA tournament violations. Having written all this, I am guilty as well.

* Arizona's (of the varicose vein Arizona’s) selection to the tournament is not justified simply because they defeated an overrated Illinois team that was never worthy of a 5 seed and a #13 seed that upset their first round opponent. Likewise, an NIT final four team has not proven that they should have been invited to the NCAA tournament.

** Usually, home court advantage comes into play in the NIT tournament, where a team is awarded a home game simply because one team's fan base is more likely to turn out for a game. Usually, I like my sports champions determined by heart, effort and talent, and not by expected net generated income. I didn't include this as an element of the 19 enumerated factors which qualify a team for selection, but I probably could have.

*** This is probably off topic, but aside from the lack of a college football playoff system, the subjectively enforced dichotomy between a charging and blocking foul is among the most annoying features of any sport- excepting the allowed use of undersized crickets in arthropod Tiddlywinks by cobras that are over four feet long. Whenever I see a ridiculous charging call made against a rightfully aggressive offensive player that jumps into a defensive player who just barely got his feet set directly under the basket- I call it a Battier. Or whenever I see a goofy defensive player trying to do nothing more than get in the way of an offensive player dribbling the ball 30 feet from the basket- the defensive player always seeming to look like one of the prostrate guys on the rod of a foosball table- I call it a Battier. Those familiar with the former Duke flopper will understand.

Middle Class Part 45: Middle Class Happiness, Abbreviated Inclusions, Consumer Confidence Index, the Omnibus Bill and Smelly Pigs

2009-03-12T21:19:00.005-05:00

RANDOM READINGS

The Reader: Aside from a movie that was nominated for the best picture Academy Award, this is what I may have been the best description of my activities in the past two weeks. When I heard there was a movie title that best encapsulated my life, I was disgusted that they did not consult me on any of the scenes to which I could lend my particular brand of nuance- animal malady humor, irreverence, diligence or the ability to beat a dead horse- identify this blog saga as you will.

In the past two weeks: I have been reading up on my middle class disaffection, the reasons for our continued, collective disgust, and even about those who could have predicted its origin.

Thesis I: I would not say that I predicted the current economic situation. I felt we had enough economic disparity between the rich and middle class two years ago to justify my anxiety about my children’s financial prospects in this world, given the cost of a college education, its connection to one’s economic prospects, the rather minuscule living wage increases as compared against inflation and the increasing prices of about two dozen necessary costs, relative to the aforementioned wage increases. When all of that is considered against the present economic backdrop, my point, which was already made, is underscored rather than proven. Fiscal disparities, because of the economy, are simply more obvious, just as frustrating, and more easily explained, but are not introduced into the equation because of a mortgage crisis and a weak stock market. We should have had reporters attack more than the men’s Connecticut basketball coach (Jim Calhoun), about his substantial salary*- perhaps the CEO of a large corporation hiding his profits overseas for instance.

Thesis II: Many of the rich have worked hard to become so and to reiterate, I would never take from one man what he has earned, even should he have an excess of capital, if there is another way. I have spent thousands of words revealing in what ways I would avoid that scenario, so much so, that I consider it more likely that at least one plastic slinky will successfully descend a staircase in the designed upon manner than that the rich, under my idea of a watchful eye of this country’s resources (governmental oversight), would need to provide for the poor or financially supplement the middle class. We, in the middle class, should be demanding more referendum voting, be authoring more initiatives, bypassing the form of gridlock which is the unsteady foundation of the American political process driven by our distracted and ineffectual representatives.

Working for a living: I read an article in the Star Tribune called “The Working Poor Saw It Coming . . .” by Iain Levison, February 22, 2009, Opinion Exchange Section (pgs. OP1 and OP3), which followed two laborers looking to make some money laying carpet, who saw their credit limit go up despite the fact that they received pink-slips from their previous employers. My mom had her bathroom redone recently by a man who spent many hours over the course of a week and made $600 from the job, but who had to pay $600 for repairs on the vehicle he used to get to the job. All of his earnings lost. That is life I guess and part of the game = acceptable. This should not be: “Circuit City, currently liquidating all its stores and laying off thousands, asked a bankruptcy judge to let it give bonuses to executives to convince them to stay for the ‘wind-down process.” Are you cracked? That is like the spirit of a desert fox asking the vulture that just consumed its carcass to stick around because another member of his pack will be along shortly to perish in the same locale. I had an ex-girlfriend that wasn’t that co-dependent. Seriously, abusive relationships, between arctic terns and moorish idols, where the abused member of the couple, (probably the latter), protects the offender, even in the midst of law enforcement protection, are not that dysfunctional. Despite my feigned surprise, somehow this is less surprising than finding out there is such a thing as chess-boxing and a declared national frozen food month (March). (Note: an Arctic tern is a bird and a moorish idol is a fish. I thought I would elaborate for those who might have thought that the Moorish Idol was a singing competition exclusive to the descendants of the "small Numidian Kingdom of Maure from the third century BC in what is now [the] northern central and western part of Algra and a part of northern Morocco.")

Things to leave out: I read something about the lack of consumer confidence Americans have in the food industry, given the peanut butter salmonella outbreak; something about how those who live in Minnesota fewer than 6 months and 1 day of the year, and who are currently exempt from paying taxes, should, in fact, be made to contribute their share of taxes; I read something about the glorification of Nelson Mandela; I read something about the pathetic political decision making that led to the bailout of two American car manufacturers- “GM and Chrysler: Uncle Sam’s Prodigal Sons” by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune- “In a normal market economy, things would proceed differently. The weak firms would file for bankruptcy and be forced to take drastic measures to cut their costs.” Previous to that, Chapman had written- “If one automaker gets the fatted calf, another one will have to do without.” He had begun the story with a new testament reference to the fatted calf killed “to celebrate the prodigal son’s return.” This calf was not killed because a corrupt cattle magnate, the beneficiary of "local control" had been allowed, by an alderman, to move his cattle confinement next door to the prodigal son's father's home- that joke, such as it is, will make more sense once you've read this entire installment. No, Cliff's notes are not available.

I read I: . . . several articles about how certain lending institutions misused the money from the bailout, either by throwing lavish parties, purchasing corporate jets, paying for executives to attend corporate retreats, or sponsoring golf tournaments, such as Northern Trust did with some of the $1.6 billion in government funds they received. (See “Northern Trust Under Pressure Over Parties” Associated Press, February 24, 2009.

I read II: . . . about “Obama’s Budget Offer[ing] Big Agenda, A Few Gaps” Washington Post, February 26, 2009; I also read enough about fiscal responsibility, people speaking on the condition of anonymity, about the Defense Department spending about $2 billion a week in Iraq in a Time magazine columnist’s critique, from July 2008, (written by The Curious Capitalist Justin Fox) of how “Congress’s housing bill won’t stop the foreclosure mess.” This column also includes the words- Congressional Budget Office and the sentence- “9 million U.S. homeowners owe more than their houses are worth.” That particular issue of Time also included an article about “The (Not so) Lunatic Fringe” which concerned the viability of 2008 Libertarian/third party presidential candidates such as Ron Paul (potential) and Bob Barr (actual), whose poll numbers (at least in the southwestern part of the country) were advancing. The same issue featured a one page article on Obama’s apparent centrism and how it upset some of his biggest fans.

I read III: . . . about the $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year and how Obama wants to extend health coverage, improve industry because of their emissions, chase alternative energy sources and invest billions of dollars in education. While I’m reading it, I think of the plot of “The Count of Monte Cristo” and the vengeance choreographed by Edmond Dantes, who takes on four of his enemies at once. I think of Obama taking on several issues at once- immigration, taxation, education, health care, Rush Limbaugh, pork-barrel spending, entitlements and perhaps even battling big business and hopefully campaign finance reform, never minding how unlikely is the latter battle considering how much Obama spent on the election; he has too many people to monetarily thank for their support of his candidacy. Ah, the audacity of hope is so out of place in politics, especially when a president signs a bill with 9,000 earmarks that any other president would sign. This line is telling- “he wants to restructure the tax code to shift more of the burden from lower- and middle-income workers to the wealthy, effectively a redistribution of wealth intended to reverse the widening income gap of recent years.” A widening income gap? Naaaaah. Next I’ll be told that snowflakes cling rather successfully to wool coats.

Forgetting the byzantine: I’ve been writing about those things for months upon months. But I streamlined the delivery of the words above, which would normally take me four pages to flush out in order to save space for other things. I may still quote from MSNBC, Associated Press, Star Tribune, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, talk radio, etc., etc., etc. in the course of my wandering through the remainder of this topic which is nearing its final installments. I don’t even have the energy to quote from ridiculous articles from May of 2008 with the headline- “Economists See Recovery Still a Long Way Off” with a subtitle that reads- “56 percent in survey see recession now or later this year—but a short one.” Nostradamus would be proud. My wife is concerned that my son, the offspring of two parents with a history of shyness, clearly a genetic disorder, is in the early stages of a life of hermitage and loneliness because he is four and doesn’t have any close friends in kindergarten. Both predictions seem a little ridiculous at this point, like the prophesied world domination of a legion of muskrats with muscular dystrophy, so bored by their affliction that they contracted herpes from playing beer pong. (Note: I heard about the fake news story of beer pong being tied to herpes from the Colbert Report which aired on 3/3/09. I’ll only take credit for the first two thirds of that instance/attempt at animal malady humor.)

Issues: After this column on middle class happiness or contentment, or whatever feeling of self-actualization we can all reach independently, I will have just one more topic to get through- taxation. I could spend another few articles investigating other social or political issues or social issues that become political issues, and try to gauge the effect those issues have on the middle class monetarily, but I will simply list those issues and refer readers to the installment where I might have covered that topic. This is not to downplay the issue’s relevance, either in the mind of the average American or how it might affect them monetarily, but that I must move on with my life.
The issues that I probably will not spend much prospective time investigating with an eye on how they would affect the middle class are:
Street violence, judicial appointments, religion and church and state issues, consumer protection, the war on drugs and the legalization of medicinal marijuana, civil liberties and American society and culture, (see parts 22-27 on immigration), capital punishment, energy policy (incomplete, but included in part 37), and the regulation of contractors (see part 33 on prevailing wage)- many of which I have somewhat addressed during the course of this smorgasbord of a blog topic.
GDP in the global economy: “Some business leaders and politicians defend both outsourcing and illegal immigration by claiming that America has an insufficient number of workers—an inadequate labor force. But if that were the case, real wages would be rising, not declining, and benefits and pensions would at least be stable, if not growing.” (From Lou Dobbs’ “War on the Middle Class” pg. 110.) I have been "permitted" to move back to my old department at work and am being replaced on my current project by contractors. The business I am in is being infiltrated by groups of people who do not come close to sharing a common heritage. Five years from now, the average middle class American will have very little in common with their co-workers. The global workforce will, of course, be talented and paid an overall compensation that is beneficial to most employers, which will stymie the average American worker’s ability to earn a living wage for the same work they did ten years ago. If “Personal consumption accounts for 70 percent of gross domestic product” (see- http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/4931661.html)** and people do not have jobs to make the money that they would ordinarily spend on goods and services, well, politicians and global businesses clamoring for a more reasonably priced workforce, I hope you choke on your globalization and world economy. This paragraph may seem out of place, but it is something I read these past two weeks and serves as a set-up for material at the end of this installment, as well as immediately below for those whose impatience for gratification (even blog diatribe gratification) is more compelling than others.

OMNIBUS BILL

Omnibus Bill I: It isn’t often that a footnote can introduce a main paragraph in my writing, but this is just such an occasion. Please read footnote number two, as indicated in the above paragraph (**), even should you have been clinically diagnosed with footnote aversion syndrome. Perhaps the intention of government is to increase its spending and remove the onus of the American consumer in contributing almost ¾ in support of the GDP. So, instead of the government relying on our spending, it seems to be planning on an increase to the 19% it comprises of the GDP. Instead of our spending our money, they seem to be interested in doing so- spending it for us. Course, they’ll have to tax us first. Why would I think this, that government could actually increase spending? Oh sure, there have been strange amendments in bills of all types before, particularly in the Omnibus Bill- a document that traditionally includes a wide variety of our fair politician’s pet projects. But consider the proposed outlays below- that will do nothing but appease the public, made happy by their elected officials, about as happy as my son made me by waking up at 6:06 this morning and promised to mitigate my dissatisfaction by sleeping on a rug, with his eyes open, in the kitchen until I finished my interrupted thought. He was quiet for about thirty seconds. The Omnibus Bill- “Once considered a relatively bipartisan measure, the measure has come under attack from Republicans _ and a handful of Democrats _ who say it is bloated and filled with wasteful, pork-barrel projects.” Quite true, considering the most offensive (literally if your nose is working) is the $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa. That is quite a pork-barrel. More attempts at pig comedy appear below. That is a threat, in the same way that the arctic tern, threatened its domestic partner by saying it planned to take up snoring.

Omnibus Bill II: This bill would also include, (before republicans are allowed to add 10-12 of their spending measures, to again waste our tax money in a more bi-partisan manner)- a “10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system,” “$238,000 to fund a deep-sea voyaging program for native Hawaiian youth,” (according to the Huffington Post- see Andrew Taylor’s March 5, 2009 contribution), $2.1 million for the Center of Grape Genetics in New York, $870k for a wolf breeding facility in North Carolina, and $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii.” I was not aware that astronomy in Hawaii had so distinguished itself that a promotion was necessary. One of the republicans proposed amendments may be “an uncomfortable measure that would require the Senate to vote up-or-down each year on pay raises for Congress, even if they’re only cost-of-living increases. Right now, such raises are on auto-pilot. Democrats had hoped to avoid making that "tough choice" in public, considering the state of the economy and the dwindling possibilities of automatic pay raises for regular Americans.” Note to the republicans, and the democrats for that matter- I noticed the dwindling possibility of cost of living increases about a decade ago. (See- “Omnibus Bill Held Up By Bipartisan Objections, Obama Summit Fetish”- funny title, but the truth of the matter is that it makes sense for the supposed problem solvers to convene a meeting to discuss the issues and the solutions; without leading members of the middle class, I don’t believe that the best solutions to existing problems (health care, entitlements, fiscal responsibility, etc.) will be achieved. (See- http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/omnibus_bill_held_up_by_bipart.asp.) I’m not sure why democrats would be the only members of congress whose vote on this measure would be so scrutinized. Also, does it make much sense for congress to vote on its own pay raises? Only if you’re a congressmen. That is like leaving me in charge of rationing the household allotment of Tagalongs- the most popular of Girl Scout Cookies. You would dispute this? I have four words that are somewhat more convincing than the JFK assassination magic bullet theory- chocolate AND peanut butter. At any rate, the most comical present amendment in the Omnibus Bill, that I've been bored enough to investigate, is the pig odor research funding for Iowa. I am not even sure that this spending measure made it into the final bill; I just have a hunch.

PIG ODOR STUDY

Pig odor gloom and doom: When I Googled the pig odor research earmark, I read some of the comments that followed the main article riffing on the 8,570 earmarks in the $410 billion Omnibus Bill (that had not yet been fully debated or signed by the president). Everyone in the country believes the money spent in their locality fills an urgent need in their soul, something which will make them whole, something which will appease their dissatisfaction with life, something that will not incinerate their nose hairs or afflict their children with a variety of brain or respiratory malfunctions. One person chronicled the “local control” that a potentially stifling Iowa Agriculture Committee Chair has on the farming community in rural Iowa. An Iowa “Farm Bureau lobbied heavily against a bill in 2006 that would have tightened regulations on [4000-head hog] confinements.” The writer knows what the results of a pig odor study will be. A wombat, born DOA knows what the results would be. This just in- pigs stink. Why waste $1.7 million on that? The stench of pigs is just a symptom of a larger problem- that an all knowing god that is credited with creating the human race did not think to give them nose flaps to prevent the inhalation of harmful smells the same way that a snake has a transparent eyelids. Or the larger problem is that some state and local bureaucracies can rival many of the streamlined corruptions that take place on the national level. My point would be- it is 2009- we have scientists interested in exhuming our 16th president (Lincoln) so they can extract chopped up bits of his DNA, use that to possibly sequence Lincoln’s entire genome and mix it with acetic acid to prove that he was dying of as many as three rare genetic disorders before Booth shot him in Ford’s theatre, but we cannot find a way to minimize the smell of a bordering herd, or twelve, of swine without spending $1.7 million to legitimize the problem of homeowners who have lost about half of the money they’ve invested in a home in Iowa? Pigs smell, now let’s resolve the problem of corrupt business practices involving Factory Farms. Another commenter writes: studies on “hog manure effects” have already been conducted by the “University of Iowa, Duke University, the Pew*** Commission, the CDC, [and] the Union of Concerned Scientists” among others . . . No reputable research group states that large animal confinement buildings are safe for communities that live around them. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia levels contribute to neurological disorders, malfunction, and even death . . . If $1.7 million will restore the people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it will have done its job. Unfortunately, it will serve as yet another costly example of the farm lobby and our legislators ignoring the truth and failing to protect the people they serve.” These are the types of citizens that should be/should have been included in one of Obama’s forthcoming, or already completed, summits about fetishes.

Plain old gloom and doom: At this point, it wouldn’t make much sense for me to quote from articles about how the weak economy was way back in early April of 2008, how the economy was souring the public on the future. (See “NYT Poll: Weak Economy Sours Public on Future, David Leonhardt and Marjorie Connelly, New York Times, April 3, 2008.) It wouldn’t make any more sense to quote from newspaper factoids about the average personal savings rate in the 1980s being 9.1 percent that has slipped to 1.7% this decade. I imagine that rate was far closer to 1.7%, than 9.1% even prior to the formally declared recession through which we are suffering- which would further prove the point I started making two years ago. And it wouldn’t do much good to question the NAR’s (National Association of Realtors) contention that “Patient buyers in most areas who do their homework will recognize that housing remains a good long-term investment.”**** I am not so sure. Owning a hamster that begins to suffer from wet tail the day you bring it home from the pet store may be a better long term investment than home ownership, even if your hovel isn't located next to a pig farm. And you don’t need to live close to a pig farm for a home’s value to have decreased 25% in the last five years. I used to think that owning a home one had the prospect of selling thirty years down the line to fund a free-wheeling retirement of travel and routine, and thankfully infrequent, colonoscopies, sans insurance, was going to be a high point in life.

Funny old gloom and doom: Obama has recently commented on the negative tack of which plenty in the media are guilty. This necessary guilt- the media cannot pretend ignorance, can be overwhelming at times. Obama is going after successive problems- health care industry (see- “In Health Plan, Industry Sees Good Business” by Dan Eggen and Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, March 5, 2009) and the federal contracting faction among others. (See- “Obama Orders Federal Contracting Overhaul” Associated Press, March 4, 2009.) If the president of the United States wants a fiscal responsibility summit to tell wealthy seniors to sacrifice (by perhaps having them pay more than their poor counterparts for prescription drugs- in the former case) and “promising to curtail no-bid [government contract] awards that have led to waste, abuse and corruption investigations” (in the latter case) and it makes economic, and logical sense then the collective citizenry and congress should enable this predilection, providing objective good comes from it. Summit away mr. president. To hell with the rushed wrangling that still leaves the citizenry wanting for progress in an age of economic uncertainty. Those who think the vote on any bill, assuming more good can come from an extra week’s deliberation, must be handled the same way as the scramble for bargains five hours after Thanksgiving day is over should be treated, in turn, like a disposable camera after the film has been developed. If you enjoy being depressed, do so while laughing your butt off. Watch Jon Stewart whose cure for pundit-pomposity and political hypocrisy is a brand of irreverence without a rival. Watch some news, some cable news, read some news, just don’t believe everything that comes into your mind and don’t always value those things which never leave it (i.e. that a home is ALWAYS a good investment).

MIDDLE CLASS HAPPINESS

Don’t worry, be happy: Back in part 10, #8, I mentioned that money does not bring happiness. The unwitting proponent of schadenfreude is similarly not completely happy when others, who were formerly insanely prosperous, are bereft of their earthly belongings or their wealth, unless we’re talking about someone who murdered his wife and her companion and gets thrown in jail for stealing, at gunpoint, some athletic relics, awards, or junk- (think- O.J. Simpson). I’m still quite please with that result. The only other time I am more pleased with another person or group’s demise, even a proposed downfall, is when the prospect of the Duke basketball team losing is imminent or when there is talk of garnishing an executive’s obscene amount of compensation, something I desired long before I included it in part 10. It seems- “The president and members of Congress are weighing various proposals to restrict chief executives’ compensation as one of the conditions of receiving help under the $700 billion financial bailout fund.” (See- “Administration, Congress Work on Pay Restrictions” Associated Press, February 3, 2009.) Two things- one, this is excellent news and two, how soon can we vote detractors of this proposal out of office? I would want board members and stock investors to have, and employ, the same powers as a one time government stipulation to curtail executive pay and not just limit this provision to the CEOs who are bailout beneficiaries. After the economy turns around, CEOs will still make 25 times what a middle class worker does and that is one reason we are in this mess to begin with- it is called profit margins; wouldn't the $35 million lining one person's pockets who miserably failed do wonders for the business or corporation that employed them? We are enamored with the prospect of a 3.5% raise and two years later the executive expels us from the corporate world, making $23 million in buyout deals for managing corporations right into the tank. After all, “Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in the midst of the economic downturn in 2008.” I don't know a blue whale that feels that entitled to consume a school of krill.

Depressed middle class: “More Americans Feel Downturn’s Pain, Poll Finds” Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen, WashingtonPost.com, December 17, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28273423/. A Washington Post-ABC News poll indicated that 66 percent of Americans “are worried about maintaining their standard of living.” People from all political parties were “highly critical of the federal action to address the crisis . . . the criticisms stem from skepticism that the government has put in place adequate controls to avoid waste and fraud in the use of federal money in the economic recovery effort.” I hate polls and will not say that I approve of them simply because the findings coincide with what I’ve been writing on this overall topic since May of 2007- for facts and speculation have begun to resemble each other. To me, these types of results are more obvious than when the she-male host of the reality show The Bachelor comes over to inform the women and the man, all of whom have the ability to see, that there is only one rose left on the tray. Yes, many polls taken in the last two years have supported my theory of the widening economic gap between the haves (the rich) and the have some (middle class).

Trust in government: Obama said, during his inauguration speech, that “those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” So, that equates to- let’s put $75 million in a stimulus bill to help people quit smoking? Imagine how happy the people would be if you could do that- actually restore trust in government. Mindful in what ways certain components of the economic stimulus bill are to the misallocation of funds I highlighted in part 9 (government waste), the people should be prepared to be disappointed, because I don’t see much bad habit reformation.

Voter’s mood: “Voters Show Darker Mood than in 2000” Kevin Sack, New York Times, January 24, 2008. “Americans feel a loss of autonomy, in their own lives and in the nation. Their politics are driven by the powerlessness they feel to control their financial well-being, their safety, their environment, their health and the country’s borders.” In line with what I’ve continually contended. “Public opinion polling is also detecting an erosion of the country’s self-image. A CBS/New York Times poll taken this month found that 75 percent of respondents thought the country had ‘pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,’ up from 44 percent in May 2000 . . . Some of those interviewed . . . said they were confident their children would not enjoy the same standard of living they had, calling it a reversal of the American dream.” This kind of grown sentiment is certainly not unfounded unless you wish to be compared to an ostrich with a complexion problem that finds the largest pile of sand it can in which to bury its head. People, that article was from January of 2008. Imagine what percentage of people feel a loss of autonomy and believe the country has gotten off on the wrong track now. It probably looks more like that -6% export figure above.

The more things stay the same: The middle class has every right to be disgusted with the nature of politics. Last summer (2008) I heard an audio clip of Ronald Reagan, campaigning on behalf of Barry Goldwater during the 1964 election cycle. This is a portion of his 4,626 words:

“I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity [countering what the democrats had said about America never having it so good] isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. [Keep in mind, that was in 1964.] We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.”

People (presidents, kings, magistrates, priests, fathers, employers) in positions of power throughout history have always taken what they felt they could get away with and ignored what it was in their power to discount. Politicians have been penitent to numbers and figures, playing meta-politics, for far too long, distracting the political consumer (the citizen-voter) with a continuous onslaught of alpha-numeric fear-mongering. Their subjective fact displays are insipid and simplistic and even the best of them in the game of balderdash (Reagan) who inherited a rather miniscule National Debt when he became president, are hard to trust. In China, 1.5 million people were evicted for Olympic construction (Section 2A USA Today, August 6, 2007). What is different about the hundreds of thousands of Americans being evicted from jobs across the country, even in sound economic times, in favor of cheaper labor overseas?

Middle class caucus: A member of the New York house of representatives- Anthony Weiner was going to create a caucus on the middle class in 2008. Weiner “listed elevating middle class incomes and making housing and college more affordable as principal issues that the caucus would examine initially.” That article was from Russell Berman, New York Sun, April 24, 2008. Any progress on that? I read elsewhere that its membership had swelled to 37 members from both parties in 19 states. And yet, $21 million was included in the stimulus bill for sod for the national mall- the grass was ruined during Obama’s investiture. Who told revelers to wear their spikes to the inauguration? For more information on this sub-sub-topic- see http://www.stargazette.com/article/20090212/UPDATE/302120010. Until something is done here to reasonably appease the middle class, it isn’t worth the space. The middle class tax reduction, which was included in the stimulus bill, is a step in the right direction as long as taxes elsewhere are kept at current levels. You cannot rejoice in an era when every time you turn around you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, unless you don’t inhale pig odor air.

More things not to include: I have articles on my desk about how Americans feel we’re worse off than 4 years ago from March 12, 2008- see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23596304/ and how “Half of Americans Struggle to Stay Happy” from April 29, 2008- see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24376037. I have had these types of articles in my possession since the spring of 2008, and while telling, are too old to be pertinent less than a year later considering all that has gotten even worse since then. Not to worry, stories about pet acupuncture and Time magazine articles about the best rapper alive being Lil Wayne are about as significant these days as sequined, pleated, corduroy sling-shot underwear sweat-shops designed for stinkbugs springing up all over the Carolinas and I won’t be quoting from those either. Political landscapes change, economic conditions worsen and our collective anxiety becomes even more well-founded than it was the previous year.

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE INDEX

CCI- from Wikipedia: The US Consumer Confidence Index is defined as “the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending.” So, we are measured by our actions and our politicians by their earmarks, their spending of our money, the money we don’t spend on investments, or consumer goods. Interesting. “A month-on-month decreasing trend [of more than 5%] suggests consumers have a negative outlook on their ability to secure and retain good jobs. Thus, manufacturers may expect consumers to avoid retail purchases, particularly large-ticket items that require financing.”***** I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned that financing thing before- part 2, part 3, part 4, etc. Wouldn’t a “large-ticket” item that requires financing be a college education? “Manufacturers may pare down inventories to reduce overhead and/or delay investing in new projects and facilities. Likewise, banks can anticipate a decrease in lending activity, mortgage applications and credit card use. Even faced with a down-trending index, the government has a variety of options, such as issuing a tax rebate or taking other fiscal or monetary action to stimulate the economy.” Perhaps the governmet has begun to consider that relying on consumer spending to comprise 70% of the GDP is not a wise approach, and that other means to make up this loss to the GDP- like ****** passing a stimulus bill which borrows money from ourselves in the future, is a better approach. This way the amount of money the government will spend, to fill the gap from the lack of consumer spending, is sure to go up, minimizing the loss of severly reduced consumer spending on the GDP. (Note: March, in addition to being, national frozen food month, per above, is also brain injury awareness month. I thought writing essentially the same thought in two different sentences would be the best way to showcase my present brain injury.)

CCI- from Investopedia I: “The Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) is a monthly release from the Conference Board, a non-profit business group that is highly regarded by investors and the Federal Reserve. CCI is a unique indicator, formed from survey results of more than 5,000 households and designed to gauge the relative health, spending power and confidence of the average consumer.” There are three separate measures that contribute to the CCI- the Index of Consumer Sentiment (the current feeling), the Current Economic Conditions (for how the general economy is going) and one for how the households see things in six months’ time- Index of Consumer Expectations. (For material from this and the next three paragraphs please see “Economic Indicators: Consumer Confidence Index (CCI), Ryan Barnes- http://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/consumerconfidence.asp.)

CCI- from Investopedia II: “A strong consumer confidence report, especially at a time when the economy is lagging behind estimates, can move the market by making investors more willing to purchase equities. The idea behind consumer confidence is that a happy consumer - one who feels that his or her standard of living is increasing - is more likely to spend more and make bigger purchases, like a new car or home.” Huh, maybe I should have taken credit for having predicted our present economic downfall, considering that the health of our economy is tied to the collective consumer’s happiness, how they feel about the trending economy as manipulated by the government, which is run by the politicians.

CCI- from Investopedia III: “In general, however, rising consumer confidence will trend in line with rising retail sales and, personal consumption and expenditures, consumer-driven indicators that relate to spending patterns.” No editorial comments needed.

CCI- from Investopedia IV: “Sentiment indicators can carry a lot of weight – there are so few that are standardized like Consumer Confidence and, in the final analysis, the happiness and spending ability of Joe Consumer is the most important determinant of an expanding economy.” So, our reluctance to part with our money, considering the prices of necessary costs, and all that Consumer Price Index stuff I decided not to include, can impact the economic health of the country? I wonder how much longer the government might wish this to be true, mindful of how American workers, who have lost jobs to overseas counterparts and due to the recession, do not have the money to spend. Is that horse dead yet?

Low down: Headline- “Consumer Confidence Index at All-Time Low” Julianne Pepitone, CNNMoney.com, December 30, 2008. “The Conference Board, a New York-based business research group, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence index fell to 38 in December from the downwardly revised 44.7 in November.” No word yet on whether the Conference Board would involve itself in a pig odor study. Considering job loss, hiring freezes, bailouts of American banking institutions, car manufacturers, the loss of half of one’s accumulated 401k retirement savings accounts, the housing market, the reduced cost of hiring a band of Chihuahuas for your civil war reenactment needs, I am surprised the CCI is not at 5%. As a consumer, who would be confident in what they are saving and spending these days? The “Economists were expecting the index to increase to 45.5, according to a Briefing.com consensus survey of economists.” Apparently, economists can pull the almighty speculation out of their ass, and attach meaning to it; facts aren’t the only things that stink. There are things that stink, that wallow around in the mud, that congregate in Washington or in capitals across the country, snorting and snuffing, from which an odor emanates that greatly offends an ever-increasing number of people who reside miles away. We keep electing these pigs who vote on their own pork-barrel spending, feigning disgust for their counterpart's proposed (and then manifest) spending measures. No wonder they are called pork-barrel spending measures, if it is pigs that approve them. Maybe brain injury awareness month is every November in which the citizens vote on their elected representatives.

_____________________________________________
* Calhoun is the highest paid state employee. See- http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2009/02/25/connecticut-governor-calls-jim-calhoun-salary-tirade-embarrassi/

** Also see this website if you are interested in learning that investment comprises 17% of GDP, government spending 19% and net exports -6% (that is negative six percent). These figures are from 2006. Maybe the government’s plan is to not have a GDP so heavily made up of people spending their money. This is good because unemployment in most states is over 7%. Investment also may not comprise 17% of GDP, at this time, as those who don’t have jobs won’t be playing in the stock market. The last time I checked- the stock market cost people at least half of their 401k retirement savings. The bountiful net export category is sure to continue to not look good (-6%). The number of toys, household belongings, automobiles, etc. that come in from overseas will cause this number to continue to increase in the negative direction, that is, unless we can count the number of jobs shipped overseas as exports. That leaves us with government spending, which is sure to increase, if exports, consumer spending, and investment all continue to fall. “The gross domestic product (GDP) is the generally accepted measure of the size of the national economy. It is the sum of investment, personal consumption, government spending, and net exports.” Definition courtesy of the Hoover institute link provided above.

*** What better name for a commission that’s purpose is to study the effects of the smell of hog manure.

**** From a 2007 or 2008 Minneapolis Star Tribune “By the Numbers” short factoid.

***** Keep in mind, that it is largely the middle class that would be financing large-ticket items. The poor probably should not be approved for a lot of financing- if they’re poor, how could a lending agency expect a return on the credit they have offered. The rich have no need to finance most things- they are rich. Why would they need to finance a $3,000 television? That leaves the middle class as, by far, the largest economic class through which lending institutions can expect to derive the most capital in the form of interest payments, which are heavily front-loaded with interest. If you are a credit card company or a lending institution, what money is to be made from the poor who, by and large, can’t get credit, or from the rich, who, by and large, don’t need it? Of course, I know that poor people all over the country are getting approved for loans and financing, but should not be and that is why we have a housing crisis- as I’ve already referenced a number of times; if people aren’t spending enough money, you give it to them to spend. What I haven’t pieced together yet is how approving loans for people who cannot afford to pay them back because they don’t have jobs with the requisite salary (cost-of-living) increases, or because they no longer have jobs, matches up with a speculated governmental alteration to the amount of consumer spending which makes up the GDP. What I’m contending is that the government does not want 70% of the GDP to be made up of consumer spending, nor should they want it to be, considering the situation I just described above.

****** Again, how does this not prove my point? We aren't being taxed more, necessarily, because an almost $800 billion stimulus bill was passed or because an over $400 billion spending bill was passed, so say the experts. However, at least as bad, our children will be. We are borrowing money in order to spend it. This too is a loan that should not be approved, largely, for reasons I mention above. We may be more poor in the future than we are now. When I say we- I am not referring to the richest 1-10%, but the economic class below them. This has been my point all along- things may not be even this good for the next generation of middle class kids who will have our debt to pay. And the overseas workers, who are already not being paid enough by the big corporations, will not take too kindly to being taxed under American tax laws in order to make up the difference. The difference being- what the government intends to spend now to even out the aspects that comprise the GDP, and what they plan on spending in the future.