My wife and I are flying the U.S. flag in our yard upside down. As you may know, flying the flag upside down is a distress signal. We feel our country is in deep trouble, and the deadlock in Washington has brought everything to a crisis stage. The interest rate we pay on our $14 Trillion debt is based on our government's high credit rating. If that credit rating drops (due to failure to pay its bills, defaulting on some of its debt, and/or failing to deal with the huge deficit) the interest on the debt will shoot up and cause the deficit to increase even more. But we've got gridlock in Washington that puts our credit rating in jeopardy.
The nation's motto is E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) But we don't see many prominent people working for unity now.
Megan and I love our country, and we're worried about her. Thus the 'distress' signal in yard. We hope others will join us in this symbolic gesture showing frustration with our elected representatives (in both the Legislative and Executive branches of goverment) inability to work together to resolve this looming fiscal crisis.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
'No more deficit!' more important than 'No new taxes'
I wrote the following to Eric Cantor and my (Republican) senators this evening. (John Boehner's website was down; Congressman Cantor was my second choice.) As you can see, I'm very concerned about the lack of progress on the debt-ceiling negotiations. The clock is ticking, and as far as I can tell, the major obstacle is that Republicans are standing fast on their 'no tax increases' position. Here's what I wrote:
"I'm a fiscal conservative, and I am upset that neither party is serious about eliminating the deficit. I had hopes for the Tea Party, but am disgusted when they proudly proclaim that the name of their party stands for Taxed Enough Already. We have a major, major debt problem which threatens to destroy our nation. We've had relatively low taxes for the past generation, and during that time out debt has soared from $1 Trillion to $14 Trillion. Why do you think that a 'no new taxes' pledge is more important than our nation's fiscal survival?
"Our nation had a huge debt after World War II, and our leaders addressed it by keeping the marginal tax rate for the highest income level at 90% for a generation. I'm not suggesting that rates should be raised that high again, but the fact that they were that high for much of my lifetime indicates that the claim that 'tax rates are already too high' is ridiculous.
"But I'm writing you from Texas because my concern is turning to anger at Republicans over the lack of a resolution to this debt-limit situation. Our nation cannot risk defaulting on its obligations. We owe $14 Triillion, as you know. Interest on this debt is immense and makes it very difficult to balance the budget, even with major spending cuts. It seems obvious to me that defaulting on our obligations is likely to raise the rates we have to pay on our debt, which will dramatically increase the deficit.
"We've dug ourselves a huge fiscal hole, and spending cuts alone will not get us out of it. The President doesn't have an 'obsession with raising taxes'; Republicans have a dangerous obsession with NOT raising taxes. End this budget stalement, and end it now! Compromise is in order."
"I'm a fiscal conservative, and I am upset that neither party is serious about eliminating the deficit. I had hopes for the Tea Party, but am disgusted when they proudly proclaim that the name of their party stands for Taxed Enough Already. We have a major, major debt problem which threatens to destroy our nation. We've had relatively low taxes for the past generation, and during that time out debt has soared from $1 Trillion to $14 Trillion. Why do you think that a 'no new taxes' pledge is more important than our nation's fiscal survival?
"Our nation had a huge debt after World War II, and our leaders addressed it by keeping the marginal tax rate for the highest income level at 90% for a generation. I'm not suggesting that rates should be raised that high again, but the fact that they were that high for much of my lifetime indicates that the claim that 'tax rates are already too high' is ridiculous.
"But I'm writing you from Texas because my concern is turning to anger at Republicans over the lack of a resolution to this debt-limit situation. Our nation cannot risk defaulting on its obligations. We owe $14 Triillion, as you know. Interest on this debt is immense and makes it very difficult to balance the budget, even with major spending cuts. It seems obvious to me that defaulting on our obligations is likely to raise the rates we have to pay on our debt, which will dramatically increase the deficit.
"We've dug ourselves a huge fiscal hole, and spending cuts alone will not get us out of it. The President doesn't have an 'obsession with raising taxes'; Republicans have a dangerous obsession with NOT raising taxes. End this budget stalement, and end it now! Compromise is in order."
Friday, July 15, 2011
Defending my previous post...
I had planned to send my previous post to my local newspaper as a letter to the editor. But I first shared it with an old friend whose opinion I value. He felt it contained 'vilifications and armegeddon scenarios', and suggested I present the problem more indepedently and objectively, with less partisanship.
His view made sense. But (of course) I defended the letter as written. Here is part of my response:
I think my letter raises some important points:
a) The "Reagan Revolution" did take us from a fiscal crisis (double-digit inflation and a $1 Trillion debt) to a generation of prosperity. But the unspoken assumption was that the solution was a permanent one: we had gone from the 'wrong way' of doing things to the 'right way', or at least a 'better way'. But in retrospect, some of that prosperity was borrowed from the future. If we had adjusted taxes (or, more accurately, had not adjusted taxes during W's administration) we may have sacrificed some 'prosperity', but we would have less debt now.
b) The drug pusher analogy may be vilification, but I think it has some merit. Perhaps I could modify it be a bartender with an alcoholic. (Or perhaps, to give distance, a saloon-keeper with alcoholic cowboys.) In my mind, historically low taxes are like the alcohol: you get the shakes, you take a drink, and you feel better. Drinking is really the problem, but it seems to be the solution. And there are vested interests that benefit from continuing the problem.
c) There's an assumption that "what's good for the stock market is good for the country." But I recall hearing analysts a few years ago talking about how low unemployment was having a negative effect on the stock market. The idea was that if people felt free to shop for jobs, they could demand more money, and labor costs would rise. I was astonished that this view was presented as just a fact: the radio commentators (I think they were on NPR) didn't seem to notice the conflict of interest. They were just informing viewers of the reason the market was "soft". I guess all the investors were supposed to hope that unemployment would rise. If so, we got our wish.
d) The following wasn't in my original text, but it was on my mind, and is in the above revision: In our generation middle-class people have become partial capitalists through the shift from pensions to retirement accounts. (Workers have also become partial socialists through the shift from savings and family to Social Security.) So many people do have a vested interest in the stock market. But the amount of vested interest is a function of the size of the investments. But in much of the political discussion higher stock market prices are assumed to be an unalloyed 'good' (unless, of course, there's a bubble). I want people to be more aware that there is a potential conflict between benefit to investors and the best interest of workers. We who are investing for retirement are both. There's a danger in putting too much emphasis on the investor side, or assuming that what's good for investors automatically leads to proliferation of good-paying jobs. But tgetting back to my revised text: our IRAs benefit when the stock market rises, but they are 'little' compared with investments of those I call the 'moneyed interests'
[Note: my friend said was misquoting the Bible]
e) I'm not quoting the Bible, I clearly say I'm paraphrasing it. And my point follows the theme of Ecclesiates 3: Things go in cycles. I'm not saying low taxes don't have a place in the big scheme of things; I'm not saying low taxes are basically evil. I'm saying that there are appropriate times for contrasting activities. The Bible says "a time to plant, a time to pluck up that which is planted." You don't dig up your garden vegetables in mid-Spring; you don't plant your garden in the fall. (At least, not unless you're in Texas!) I want to point out that solutions aren't necessarily permanent. (And I also want to give an indication that I'm not Biblically ignorant.)
f) Long dissertations like this don't fly in letters to the editor. People's attention span when reading newpapers doesn't give me time to present the problem independently. My goal is to plant a seed, and hope it makes some people think about the problem from an alternative perspective.
g) In general, I don't think the piece demonstrates inflexibility. I see flexibility as something separate from viewpoint. Flexible people with various viewpoints can get together and chart out a course of action that is acceptable to all. But if a valid point of view is missing or ignored at the conference table, the resulting action may not be as good as it might otherwise be. I want to insert these ideas into the discussion.
I hear what you're saying about painting 'disagreers as criminals'. I'll modify the metaphor to saloon-keepers. But I think I will submit it...
[End of my response]
In case you missed it, the letter being discussed is posted on this blog. (see below).
His view made sense. But (of course) I defended the letter as written. Here is part of my response:
I think my letter raises some important points:
a) The "Reagan Revolution" did take us from a fiscal crisis (double-digit inflation and a $1 Trillion debt) to a generation of prosperity. But the unspoken assumption was that the solution was a permanent one: we had gone from the 'wrong way' of doing things to the 'right way', or at least a 'better way'. But in retrospect, some of that prosperity was borrowed from the future. If we had adjusted taxes (or, more accurately, had not adjusted taxes during W's administration) we may have sacrificed some 'prosperity', but we would have less debt now.
b) The drug pusher analogy may be vilification, but I think it has some merit. Perhaps I could modify it be a bartender with an alcoholic. (Or perhaps, to give distance, a saloon-keeper with alcoholic cowboys.) In my mind, historically low taxes are like the alcohol: you get the shakes, you take a drink, and you feel better. Drinking is really the problem, but it seems to be the solution. And there are vested interests that benefit from continuing the problem.
c) There's an assumption that "what's good for the stock market is good for the country." But I recall hearing analysts a few years ago talking about how low unemployment was having a negative effect on the stock market. The idea was that if people felt free to shop for jobs, they could demand more money, and labor costs would rise. I was astonished that this view was presented as just a fact: the radio commentators (I think they were on NPR) didn't seem to notice the conflict of interest. They were just informing viewers of the reason the market was "soft". I guess all the investors were supposed to hope that unemployment would rise. If so, we got our wish.
d) The following wasn't in my original text, but it was on my mind, and is in the above revision: In our generation middle-class people have become partial capitalists through the shift from pensions to retirement accounts. (Workers have also become partial socialists through the shift from savings and family to Social Security.) So many people do have a vested interest in the stock market. But the amount of vested interest is a function of the size of the investments. But in much of the political discussion higher stock market prices are assumed to be an unalloyed 'good' (unless, of course, there's a bubble). I want people to be more aware that there is a potential conflict between benefit to investors and the best interest of workers. We who are investing for retirement are both. There's a danger in putting too much emphasis on the investor side, or assuming that what's good for investors automatically leads to proliferation of good-paying jobs. But tgetting back to my revised text: our IRAs benefit when the stock market rises, but they are 'little' compared with investments of those I call the 'moneyed interests'
[Note: my friend said was misquoting the Bible]
e) I'm not quoting the Bible, I clearly say I'm paraphrasing it. And my point follows the theme of Ecclesiates 3: Things go in cycles. I'm not saying low taxes don't have a place in the big scheme of things; I'm not saying low taxes are basically evil. I'm saying that there are appropriate times for contrasting activities. The Bible says "a time to plant, a time to pluck up that which is planted." You don't dig up your garden vegetables in mid-Spring; you don't plant your garden in the fall. (At least, not unless you're in Texas!) I want to point out that solutions aren't necessarily permanent. (And I also want to give an indication that I'm not Biblically ignorant.)
f) Long dissertations like this don't fly in letters to the editor. People's attention span when reading newpapers doesn't give me time to present the problem independently. My goal is to plant a seed, and hope it makes some people think about the problem from an alternative perspective.
g) In general, I don't think the piece demonstrates inflexibility. I see flexibility as something separate from viewpoint. Flexible people with various viewpoints can get together and chart out a course of action that is acceptable to all. But if a valid point of view is missing or ignored at the conference table, the resulting action may not be as good as it might otherwise be. I want to insert these ideas into the discussion.
I hear what you're saying about painting 'disagreers as criminals'. I'll modify the metaphor to saloon-keepers. But I think I will submit it...
[End of my response]
In case you missed it, the letter being discussed is posted on this blog. (see below).
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Cost of Prosperity
Low taxes brought us prosperity, but also a huge debt. It's prosperity we can no longer afford.
But monied interests, like well-heeled corporate drug pushers, see change as bad for business. They tell us "Low taxes aren't the problem! Low taxes are the solution. Here, have another hit, ..er.., dose. It will make you feel better." Don't listen to them, or you'll be gently lulled back to sleep, only to be awakened when they eliminate your job to protect the stock market that you thought was your friend.
To paraphrase Ecclesiastes: "There is a season for every purpose under heaven...a time to borrow from future generations, and a time to start paying back the debt." We've reached the time to start paying back what we've borrowed. It will be tough, but we can do it. We have to. We owe it to our children.
But monied interests, like well-heeled corporate drug pushers, see change as bad for business. They tell us "Low taxes aren't the problem! Low taxes are the solution. Here, have another hit, ..er.., dose. It will make you feel better." Don't listen to them, or you'll be gently lulled back to sleep, only to be awakened when they eliminate your job to protect the stock market that you thought was your friend.
To paraphrase Ecclesiastes: "There is a season for every purpose under heaven...a time to borrow from future generations, and a time to start paying back the debt." We've reached the time to start paying back what we've borrowed. It will be tough, but we can do it. We have to. We owe it to our children.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Don't wait for Government to create jobs
We don’t need to wait for government to find a way to create American jobs. The solution is in the hands of every consumer: Buy American-made products. Use your dollars to reward companies that pay Americans to work. Don't reward companies for creating jobs in other countries when its possible for the jobs to be done here.
"Buying American" is not free: you'll generally pay more for an American-made product than for an import. But the benefits are multiplicative when American workers use their money to buy American products. You use money from your American job to pay a little more to fund American workers, and they do the same. The economy grows, and the country benefits. The benefits justify the additional cost.
The money each of us have is from American jobs (our jobs!) We should use our money in a way that sustains the system that gave us a way to earn it.
The best thing about this idea is that it doesn't involve government. We can and should still argue about improving government policies, but solving the problem doesn’t have to wait. The power is already in our hands. Job creation is important. Important things are worth paying for. Pay a little more to buy American products, and help support or create American jobs. You don't have to wait for the next election in order to make a difference.
"Buying American" is not free: you'll generally pay more for an American-made product than for an import. But the benefits are multiplicative when American workers use their money to buy American products. You use money from your American job to pay a little more to fund American workers, and they do the same. The economy grows, and the country benefits. The benefits justify the additional cost.
The money each of us have is from American jobs (our jobs!) We should use our money in a way that sustains the system that gave us a way to earn it.
The best thing about this idea is that it doesn't involve government. We can and should still argue about improving government policies, but solving the problem doesn’t have to wait. The power is already in our hands. Job creation is important. Important things are worth paying for. Pay a little more to buy American products, and help support or create American jobs. You don't have to wait for the next election in order to make a difference.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Deficit, not Gas Prices, is the problem
My senators are helping to block attempts to reduce tax breaks for oil companies. One of them was quoted today in my local paper as saying: "...it's not going to solve the problem that most Americans are complaining about today, which is high gas prices."
Here's [a slightly edited version of ]what I wrote to him:
ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? Today's problem is NOT 'high gas prices'; today's problem is our HUGE DEFICIT and MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. You and other leaders need to use every tool at your disposal to address this overriding problem of deficits, and eliminating special interest tax breaks is one of those tools. USE IT!
On a related note, as a conservative I'm sure you understand the concept that 'high prices are the cure for high prices'. In fact, direct or indirect subsidies for gasoline contribute to many other problems. They decrease demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. They encourage urban sprawl, which has too many negative effects to list here. They increase air pollution which must be countered with onerous and costly regulations, and/or causes health problems that will burden us with higher Medicare costs down the road. (Another negative impact on future budgets.) In general, gasoline tax subsidies make it harder for American companies developing new energy-efficient technologies to compete against the status quo. We both realize that gasoline in other developed countries is much more expensive than here, so companies in THOSE countries recognize the importance of these technologies, and are working hard to develop these technologies themselves.
In summary: vote to end special tax breaks for oil companies.
They're bad for the deficit.
They're bad for the environment.
They're bad for health.
They're bad for the future.
They're bad for America.
Vote to end them.
Here's [a slightly edited version of ]what I wrote to him:
ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? Today's problem is NOT 'high gas prices'; today's problem is our HUGE DEFICIT and MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. You and other leaders need to use every tool at your disposal to address this overriding problem of deficits, and eliminating special interest tax breaks is one of those tools. USE IT!
On a related note, as a conservative I'm sure you understand the concept that 'high prices are the cure for high prices'. In fact, direct or indirect subsidies for gasoline contribute to many other problems. They decrease demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. They encourage urban sprawl, which has too many negative effects to list here. They increase air pollution which must be countered with onerous and costly regulations, and/or causes health problems that will burden us with higher Medicare costs down the road. (Another negative impact on future budgets.) In general, gasoline tax subsidies make it harder for American companies developing new energy-efficient technologies to compete against the status quo. We both realize that gasoline in other developed countries is much more expensive than here, so companies in THOSE countries recognize the importance of these technologies, and are working hard to develop these technologies themselves.
In summary: vote to end special tax breaks for oil companies.
They're bad for the deficit.
They're bad for the environment.
They're bad for health.
They're bad for the future.
They're bad for America.
Vote to end them.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Perception vs Reality
Perception is not Reality. Reality is Reality, and Reality is too complex for mere mortals to perceive in its entirety. What we perceive is just a model of Reality. Effective models reflect what is important about Reality, and what is important depends on observer and the observer's context.
The models we use organize and simplify what we perceive about Reality, and we use these models to make decisions. Good models (can) lead to good decisions. A model is a lens through which we view Reality. When Reality changes in a significant way, the view we see through this lens changes, and this allows us to respond in an appropriate way.
Note the use of the word 'significant'. Reality is constantly changing in ways we can't hope to comprehend. Your are slightly older now than you were when you started reading this. That is an example of how swiftly and constantly Reality changes. But is your increased age significant? No! So your model of Reality doesn't take this slight aging into account. Reality changed, but your view of Reality did not.
Someone walking into the room while you are reading this may or may not be significant. If you are currently alone, the entrance of someone else probably warrants your attention. But if you're in a crowded public space (say, a library) where people are constantly coming and going, the arrival of another person makes no significant difference; it doesn't affect your view of Reality. Unless...
Unless there's something 'different' about that person. We know, in reality, EVERY person is unique, and thus every person is different. But not every difference is important in your view of the current state of the world around you. And what is 'important' is contextual and subjective.
Contextual means it depends on other things. If you're in a public library, a stranger entering the room is no big deal. If you are at home 'alone' at night, a stranger entering the room unannounced is a VERY big deal.
Even in the library example, context matters. In the segregated southern U.S. of generations past, or in the apartheid South Africa, the arrival of a black person in a public library would have been very significant, whereas today it would probably be not. The context has changed.
Importance is also subjective. Is the 'sexual preference' of the people around you (or the people around your family members) important? Some would say yes, it's very important. Others would say it's not important at all. So people of varying opinions co-exist simultaneously. It's not the context that that causes too models to assign different importance to the same fact; the difference is subjective.
So we base our judgements on models of reality, and these models reflect that we feel is important about Reality. The key thing to remember is that the models are subjective, and are NOT Reality itself. Most of the time we behave as if the model IS Reality, because that's what the model is for: the model is the view of reality on which we base our behavior. If the model is a good one, the judgments we make based on it result in appropriate responses to Reality, and we benefit.
The models we use organize and simplify what we perceive about Reality, and we use these models to make decisions. Good models (can) lead to good decisions. A model is a lens through which we view Reality. When Reality changes in a significant way, the view we see through this lens changes, and this allows us to respond in an appropriate way.
Note the use of the word 'significant'. Reality is constantly changing in ways we can't hope to comprehend. Your are slightly older now than you were when you started reading this. That is an example of how swiftly and constantly Reality changes. But is your increased age significant? No! So your model of Reality doesn't take this slight aging into account. Reality changed, but your view of Reality did not.
Someone walking into the room while you are reading this may or may not be significant. If you are currently alone, the entrance of someone else probably warrants your attention. But if you're in a crowded public space (say, a library) where people are constantly coming and going, the arrival of another person makes no significant difference; it doesn't affect your view of Reality. Unless...
Unless there's something 'different' about that person. We know, in reality, EVERY person is unique, and thus every person is different. But not every difference is important in your view of the current state of the world around you. And what is 'important' is contextual and subjective.
Contextual means it depends on other things. If you're in a public library, a stranger entering the room is no big deal. If you are at home 'alone' at night, a stranger entering the room unannounced is a VERY big deal.
Even in the library example, context matters. In the segregated southern U.S. of generations past, or in the apartheid South Africa, the arrival of a black person in a public library would have been very significant, whereas today it would probably be not. The context has changed.
Importance is also subjective. Is the 'sexual preference' of the people around you (or the people around your family members) important? Some would say yes, it's very important. Others would say it's not important at all. So people of varying opinions co-exist simultaneously. It's not the context that that causes too models to assign different importance to the same fact; the difference is subjective.
So we base our judgements on models of reality, and these models reflect that we feel is important about Reality. The key thing to remember is that the models are subjective, and are NOT Reality itself. Most of the time we behave as if the model IS Reality, because that's what the model is for: the model is the view of reality on which we base our behavior. If the model is a good one, the judgments we make based on it result in appropriate responses to Reality, and we benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
