California Governor
The latest poll shows the approval rating for Arnold Schwarzenegger is down to an all time low of 22%, the same as Gray Davis had when he was recalled. Gee, and Arnold has such potential. I remember that he said he would bring a business approach to State government, would eliminate all that rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, and then balance the budget without raising taxes. Well, the current State budget is $20 billion short of balancing, the same amount as last year, but not to worry. Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman, former head of EBay, is promising to bring a business approach to government, eliminate all that waste, fraud, and abuse, and balance the budget without raising taxes. Thank goodness we have a Republican candidate for governor bringing fresh ideas to State government!
How Many Times Are You Going To Nuke 'em?
The Obama administion has announced plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal from a little over 5,000 warhead to only a little over 3,000 warheads, a reduction of about 40%. There go the Democrats again, putting American security at risk. Now instead of being able to destroy the world 25 times over, we will be able to destroy the world only 15 times over. Actually, I am being "conservative." It may be going from 50 times to 30 times since Carl Sagan and a group of scientists calculated that as little as 100 thermonuclear bombs going off could bring about nuclear winter. Remember nuclear winter? Enough nuclear bombs exploding and cities destroyed and the ash, dust, and soot could cover the whole earth, drop temperatures to where it was year around winter for maybe a decade, destroying civilization and much of humanity. But, hey on the good side, this is one way to combat global warming that conservatives could support--bomb (insert your favorite enemy here) back to the stone age and combat global warming at the same time.
The administration also announced that they will increase the amount spent on "modernizing" our nuclear arsenal. That is, they will make sure that those old bombs are replaced or checked for reliability to make sure that they explode when we set out to destroy the world. Considering that the whole point of nuclear weapons is to never drop them, but only use them as a deterrent, I think a little uncertainty about their reliability would be a good thing. A President might be a little more hesitant about launching a nuclear strike if he or she wasn't sure they would work.
Debt Relief Is On The Way
The congressional Republicans have announced plans to find $20 billion in deficit reduction. Thank goodness for their expertise. After all, Bush increased the total US deficit less than two times compared to Reagan's almost three times. Of course, as covered in my last post, Senator John Kyl said deficits don't matter when cutting taxes for the rich. In 2005 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the tax cuts to be over $500 billion FOR THAT YEAR ALONE. Oh, and when asked why the Republicans didn't do anything about the deficit when they passed the Medicare drug benefit about half a dozen years ago (adding about $640 billion to the debt over 10 years), Republican Senator Orrin Hatch admitted that they didn't think about those things back then. Of course they made history by being the first legislature anywhere to actually cut taxes during a war. That War in Iraq has added $1 trillion to the deficit and it is still going up daily, albeit much slower now. Thanks to veteran disability payments and other such associated costs, the final bill has been estimated to be between $2 and $3 trillion. But when searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, money is no object, right?
So, send your ideas for debt reduction to your favorite Republican. Here are a couple of suggestions. In addition to doing away with the Bush tax cuts, how about "re-sizing" the military, to use an au courant term from the world of business. The Defense Department budget has doubled in the last 10 years (we now spend as much as the rest of the world COMBINED). Seeing as how al Qaida is our only real enemy now, I have the following questions. How many submarines and carrier task forces does it take to maintain naval superiority? How many jet fighters will it take to maintain air superiority over al Qaida? How many tanks will it take to defeat them? How many overseas bases? With about 40,000 Marines on Okinawa, I'm sure that island is safe, but is that where they are needed? Since conservatives insist that it must be a "war" against terrorism and not just police action, these are important questions they need to address.
Friday, July 16, 2010
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNEMPLOYED
You can't fool us any longer. We are on to your sleazy game. You are on unemployment just to get the benefits for not working. The jobs are there, you just don't want them! You are a bunch of lazy, dependent good-for- nothings. Many of you will become hobos, because you don't want to work and unemployment payments only encourage your sloth. To pay you reprobates will only increase the deficit without any benefit. So, get off your ass and get a job!
And how do we know the above is true? Why the Republicans have told us so. From the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, the gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, and from Senator John Kyl of Arizona, just to name a few. And just so you know how important deficits are, John Kyl will set you straight. When asked about the effect on the deficit of the extension of the Bush tax cuts (which he favors), Kyl said that we shouldn't find another revenue source for the lost revenue. Deficits matter only when cutting spending, not when cutting revenue. This, by the way, is in line with the Grover Norquist philosophy: reduce the revenue for the government so that spending has to be curtailed, except for the Defense Department, of course. So gather your pitchforks and torches and demand we cut off spending for the unemployed while cutting taxes for the rich. I'm sure that's fair.
And how do we know the above is true? Why the Republicans have told us so. From the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, the gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania, and from Senator John Kyl of Arizona, just to name a few. And just so you know how important deficits are, John Kyl will set you straight. When asked about the effect on the deficit of the extension of the Bush tax cuts (which he favors), Kyl said that we shouldn't find another revenue source for the lost revenue. Deficits matter only when cutting spending, not when cutting revenue. This, by the way, is in line with the Grover Norquist philosophy: reduce the revenue for the government so that spending has to be curtailed, except for the Defense Department, of course. So gather your pitchforks and torches and demand we cut off spending for the unemployed while cutting taxes for the rich. I'm sure that's fair.
Monday, July 12, 2010
COACHES, MANAGERS, AND THE CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY
The recent death of former football coach Don Coryell, following the death of Coach John Wooden by only a few weeks got me to thinking about what it was that made them successful. Here is a quote from a letter to the editor in the LA Times from Donn Dufford who knew Coach Coryell well. "Like John Wooden , Coach Coryell coached winning teams and was innovative. But what I learned from Don was how to deal with people. He treated each of his players, and everyone he came in contact with, with the utmost respect. He gave you 100% of his attention and was genuinely concerned about your success, on and off the field. He made you feel special and important and vital to the team's success."
When you read about Coach Wooden you see the same sort of traits. His former players say that he wasn't just teaching them basketball, but life lessons. One of Coach Wooden's keys to success is relationships. He has said that friendships are among the most important things in a person's life. He emphasized the achievement of the team above that of the individual, but focused on treating individuals with respect and valued their contributions.
Coach Bear Bryant was a very successful football coach, mostly at the University of Alabama. I read where he criticized his players only when they won. When they lost, he took the blame, saying that he had not done a good enough job of preparing the team for the game. Like all other successful c0oaches he let the individuals know that they were valued and respected.
There is a lot of social science research which shows that this is the best way to achieve success with an organization. Management studies have labeled different approaches as Theory X, Theory Y, and Theory Z. In short, what works best is not top down management, but management which includes and values the contributions of employees and seeks their input. Such organizations have better morale, lower turn over, and higher achievement. Furthermore, once basic salary needs are met, it has been shown that valuing and rewarding employee input is a better motivator than increased salary.
And yet, what do we see in modern American society? Quite the opposite. In the modern corporation the bean counters have won. Employees are treated as cost units, the fewer the better. Rather than being seen as an asset, they are considered a liability. So, what we see all too often is a top down management which uses a slash and burn approach to eliminate employees in order to cut costs to the bone, rather than asking for their ideas to innovate and look for efficiencies. When positions aren't eliminated, then they are outsourced to some place where the employee makes one fifth or one tenth the salary, in large part because the host country has no labor laws or environmental protection. This is the foundation of the conservative obeisance to the free market.
Modern day conservatism is the ultimate expression of what I consider to be an anti-human philosophy. President Hoover reportedly remarked during the depths of the Great Depression that all the the men selling apples on the street was a sign that people were starting their own businesses and recovery was just around the corner. Modern conservatives are just as out of touch. We now have conservative Republicans saying that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment and that people are unemployed because they are dependent and lazy. They don't bother to explain how everyone is supposed to get a ;job when there is an average of five applicants for every job opening. Funny, too, how so many of these same people were busy working and then just left in order to take a drastic cut in income and risk losing their homes, medical insurance, and other assets.
Modern day conservatives seem to be totally lacking in empathy and consumed with personal wealth. Unlike the coaches I mentioned above, they have no concern for the value of others or the success of the organization (in this case, economy and country), as long as they get theirs. About a year or two ago I had some on line correspondence with a conservative about economic issues and I was struck by his overwhelming use of "I messages." Everything was about how much "I" accomplished, how much "I" earned, how much "I" deserved, etc., etc. Folks, if you haven't learned by now that you can't take it with you, you are beyond hope. Who is remembered more, the one who does all he can for himself, or the one who does all he can for others? Modern conservatives only care about themselves.
If you have any doubts, study some recent history. The case study of Saipan is instructive. I first heard about it maybe ten or twelve years ago because of a two part report by Brian Ross of ABC News. I believe it was on the show 20-20. There is a very detailed account in Chapter 9 of The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. Saipan is an American territory in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. Conservatives hailed it as a laboratory of liberty, a sign that pro-business policies are pro-people policies, a place to seek answers for the rest of America's family (Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego County). What brought about these conservative accolades? Unlimited immigration where the immigrants could be bound by contract to a particular employer and couldn't even change jobs without permission, these so-called "guest workers" could be deported for the slightest offense (like objecting to pay or conditions or trying to organize), lax or no enforcement of labor laws and employees could be restricted to barracks by employers, and a low minimum wage. There were other factors, but these are most important and give you an idea of what conditions were like. Thanks to Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the extension of US labor laws to Saipan was stymied for about a decade until Democrats finally got control of Congress.
What was the result of the above policies? Employees were enticed to work "in America". They were mostly poor women from Asia. They had to work in sweatshop conditions (mostly in the garment industry which used the "Made in America" tag) and some were forced into prostitution and, if they got pregnant, forced to have abortions. They were forbidden to leave their barracks except to go to work and any complaints or problems were met with deportation. Thanks to free market conditions, wages were driven so low for the guest workers that the hourly pay for domestic workers went as low as 64 cents an hour so that people on relief (the natives) could afford to have maids. And rich businessmen controlled the local government. In 2006 Tom DeLay told the Houston Chronicle that we should emulate Saipan and set up a program "where particular companies can bring Mexican workers in," and pay them, "whatever wage the market will bear." (Frank, pp. 229-30)
Since the Gingrich revolution in 1995 the GOP has been captured and run by extreme ideologues such as Howard Phillips and Grover Norquist. Their sole aim is to destroy as much government as possible and let the free market (read huge corporations) control the country. As Norquist famously said, he wants to shrink government so much that you can drown it in a bathtub. As John Dean points out in his book, Broken Government, the Republicans aren't interested in governing, but only want to exercise power in order to enrich their big business friends If they can't do that, they want to stop liberals from doing any good (see p. 23; this was written in 2006). I think the last conservative Republican (who make up about 90% of the party) to be actually concerned about solving problems, was Jack Kemp, who died a few years ago and lost his influence after 1996. We have seen the triumph of anti-human conservatism over the Republican Party. Unfortunately, because of the excellence of Frank Luntz, a political p.r. man, extraordinare, and a compliant, corporation controlled media, the Republicans have managed to control a lot of the political dialog and con a large segment of the American people.
I recommend both the Frank book and John Dean's book, plus Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience for excellent analyses of modern conservatism. Because they approach the topic from different angles, Frank and Dean are complementary and not duplicative. Finally, I wish to quote from Dean's Broken Government. The following quote, pp. 200-201, is from a former colleague of Dean's who also worked in the Nixon White House and who has a son now working in the Federal government and thus wished to maintain anonymity to protect his son from retaliation (this book was written while Bush was still in power). "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they are dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from the government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
When you read about Coach Wooden you see the same sort of traits. His former players say that he wasn't just teaching them basketball, but life lessons. One of Coach Wooden's keys to success is relationships. He has said that friendships are among the most important things in a person's life. He emphasized the achievement of the team above that of the individual, but focused on treating individuals with respect and valued their contributions.
Coach Bear Bryant was a very successful football coach, mostly at the University of Alabama. I read where he criticized his players only when they won. When they lost, he took the blame, saying that he had not done a good enough job of preparing the team for the game. Like all other successful c0oaches he let the individuals know that they were valued and respected.
There is a lot of social science research which shows that this is the best way to achieve success with an organization. Management studies have labeled different approaches as Theory X, Theory Y, and Theory Z. In short, what works best is not top down management, but management which includes and values the contributions of employees and seeks their input. Such organizations have better morale, lower turn over, and higher achievement. Furthermore, once basic salary needs are met, it has been shown that valuing and rewarding employee input is a better motivator than increased salary.
And yet, what do we see in modern American society? Quite the opposite. In the modern corporation the bean counters have won. Employees are treated as cost units, the fewer the better. Rather than being seen as an asset, they are considered a liability. So, what we see all too often is a top down management which uses a slash and burn approach to eliminate employees in order to cut costs to the bone, rather than asking for their ideas to innovate and look for efficiencies. When positions aren't eliminated, then they are outsourced to some place where the employee makes one fifth or one tenth the salary, in large part because the host country has no labor laws or environmental protection. This is the foundation of the conservative obeisance to the free market.
Modern day conservatism is the ultimate expression of what I consider to be an anti-human philosophy. President Hoover reportedly remarked during the depths of the Great Depression that all the the men selling apples on the street was a sign that people were starting their own businesses and recovery was just around the corner. Modern conservatives are just as out of touch. We now have conservative Republicans saying that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment and that people are unemployed because they are dependent and lazy. They don't bother to explain how everyone is supposed to get a ;job when there is an average of five applicants for every job opening. Funny, too, how so many of these same people were busy working and then just left in order to take a drastic cut in income and risk losing their homes, medical insurance, and other assets.
Modern day conservatives seem to be totally lacking in empathy and consumed with personal wealth. Unlike the coaches I mentioned above, they have no concern for the value of others or the success of the organization (in this case, economy and country), as long as they get theirs. About a year or two ago I had some on line correspondence with a conservative about economic issues and I was struck by his overwhelming use of "I messages." Everything was about how much "I" accomplished, how much "I" earned, how much "I" deserved, etc., etc. Folks, if you haven't learned by now that you can't take it with you, you are beyond hope. Who is remembered more, the one who does all he can for himself, or the one who does all he can for others? Modern conservatives only care about themselves.
If you have any doubts, study some recent history. The case study of Saipan is instructive. I first heard about it maybe ten or twelve years ago because of a two part report by Brian Ross of ABC News. I believe it was on the show 20-20. There is a very detailed account in Chapter 9 of The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. Saipan is an American territory in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. Conservatives hailed it as a laboratory of liberty, a sign that pro-business policies are pro-people policies, a place to seek answers for the rest of America's family (Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego County). What brought about these conservative accolades? Unlimited immigration where the immigrants could be bound by contract to a particular employer and couldn't even change jobs without permission, these so-called "guest workers" could be deported for the slightest offense (like objecting to pay or conditions or trying to organize), lax or no enforcement of labor laws and employees could be restricted to barracks by employers, and a low minimum wage. There were other factors, but these are most important and give you an idea of what conditions were like. Thanks to Republican Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the extension of US labor laws to Saipan was stymied for about a decade until Democrats finally got control of Congress.
What was the result of the above policies? Employees were enticed to work "in America". They were mostly poor women from Asia. They had to work in sweatshop conditions (mostly in the garment industry which used the "Made in America" tag) and some were forced into prostitution and, if they got pregnant, forced to have abortions. They were forbidden to leave their barracks except to go to work and any complaints or problems were met with deportation. Thanks to free market conditions, wages were driven so low for the guest workers that the hourly pay for domestic workers went as low as 64 cents an hour so that people on relief (the natives) could afford to have maids. And rich businessmen controlled the local government. In 2006 Tom DeLay told the Houston Chronicle that we should emulate Saipan and set up a program "where particular companies can bring Mexican workers in," and pay them, "whatever wage the market will bear." (Frank, pp. 229-30)
Since the Gingrich revolution in 1995 the GOP has been captured and run by extreme ideologues such as Howard Phillips and Grover Norquist. Their sole aim is to destroy as much government as possible and let the free market (read huge corporations) control the country. As Norquist famously said, he wants to shrink government so much that you can drown it in a bathtub. As John Dean points out in his book, Broken Government, the Republicans aren't interested in governing, but only want to exercise power in order to enrich their big business friends If they can't do that, they want to stop liberals from doing any good (see p. 23; this was written in 2006). I think the last conservative Republican (who make up about 90% of the party) to be actually concerned about solving problems, was Jack Kemp, who died a few years ago and lost his influence after 1996. We have seen the triumph of anti-human conservatism over the Republican Party. Unfortunately, because of the excellence of Frank Luntz, a political p.r. man, extraordinare, and a compliant, corporation controlled media, the Republicans have managed to control a lot of the political dialog and con a large segment of the American people.
I recommend both the Frank book and John Dean's book, plus Dean's Conservatives Without a Conscience for excellent analyses of modern conservatism. Because they approach the topic from different angles, Frank and Dean are complementary and not duplicative. Finally, I wish to quote from Dean's Broken Government. The following quote, pp. 200-201, is from a former colleague of Dean's who also worked in the Nixon White House and who has a son now working in the Federal government and thus wished to maintain anonymity to protect his son from retaliation (this book was written while Bush was still in power). "Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they are dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from the government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
THE WORLD CUP
I happen to be a huge soccer fan and the World Cup starts Friday, June 11 and lasts a month. I may not do any posts during that time. And although no one may care, here are some predictions.
Mexico will defeat South Africa in the opening game and will finish first or second in its group and advance to the Round of 16. It may win one game after that, but probably no more because of its deficiencies in defending set plays. When it runs into a physical European team it will probably lose.
The US will lose to England 2-1, but will put a scare into the English. The US will have trouble with Slovenia, but win a close game, beat Algeria and go on to the next round. Like Mexico it may win one more game, but probably no more than that because of some defensive weaknesses which will be exposed by a more skillful team. If, however, the US meets Mexico (a possibility in the quarterfinals), the US should prevail.
I believe that Brazil will win it all because I like their defense and their coach. Spain looks scary good, but I don't think their defense is as good as Brazil's and they will probably come in second or third, depending on when and if they play Brazil. My dark horse is Holland, if they get Arjen Robben back from injury. Argentina has a wealth of talent, but Maradonna seems a terrible coach so I suspect they will be disorganized and under perform. England may get as far as the semifinals, but more likely will fall in the quarters because their best defender is out injured and their goal keeping is not first rate. Italy looks too old and Germany seems to be lacking attacking talent this time. Of those two, Italy may get farther because they always seem to manage to put together a tight defense.
Mexico will defeat South Africa in the opening game and will finish first or second in its group and advance to the Round of 16. It may win one game after that, but probably no more because of its deficiencies in defending set plays. When it runs into a physical European team it will probably lose.
The US will lose to England 2-1, but will put a scare into the English. The US will have trouble with Slovenia, but win a close game, beat Algeria and go on to the next round. Like Mexico it may win one more game, but probably no more than that because of some defensive weaknesses which will be exposed by a more skillful team. If, however, the US meets Mexico (a possibility in the quarterfinals), the US should prevail.
I believe that Brazil will win it all because I like their defense and their coach. Spain looks scary good, but I don't think their defense is as good as Brazil's and they will probably come in second or third, depending on when and if they play Brazil. My dark horse is Holland, if they get Arjen Robben back from injury. Argentina has a wealth of talent, but Maradonna seems a terrible coach so I suspect they will be disorganized and under perform. England may get as far as the semifinals, but more likely will fall in the quarters because their best defender is out injured and their goal keeping is not first rate. Italy looks too old and Germany seems to be lacking attacking talent this time. Of those two, Italy may get farther because they always seem to manage to put together a tight defense.
RATING OBAMA--FOREIGN POLICY
I forgot to include Obama's foreign policy in my previous post on critiquing his performance. I would rate his foreign policy as A- or A. After the Bush presidency, Obama is a true breath of fresh air. He chose just the right tack on the upheaval in Iran and policy vis-a-vis Iran since then. I think he should be removing troops out of Iraq quicker, but that is a minor quibble. He is probably doing the best that can be done in the Israel/Palestine problem. The Netanyahu government seems unmovable and domestic support for Israel is mostly irrational and unyielding. His latest approach on the Israeli blockade of Gaza is probably the best and only approach. It will take some time to revise US foreign policy in this area and bring about any real change. We may not see anything concrete until, hopefully, a second Obama term. We may need a change in Israel's government before any progress can be made.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
2009 AWARDS
Jeanne Kirkpatrick Award
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
ECONOMIC DANGERS
I suppose to protect myself I should say that I am not a financial adviser and the following is not financial advice. I have become concerned with recent economic developments. So-called deficit hawks, which seem to include most blue dog Democrats, seem to be in the ascendancy. An attempt to fund unemployment benefit payments and COBRA subsidies is floundering in the House, as is an attempt to provide states with $23 billion so that hundreds of thousands of teachers will not be laid off. The jobs /unemployment report for May included the information that 22,000 jobs were lost in that month in state and local government. In fact, because state and local governments have to have balanced budgets, they have cut back their spending by $150 to $200 billion over the last year or so. In addition, in Europe we see the same sort of attitude expressing itself in some countries, especially Germany and England. The result may very well to strangle the economic recovery, or at least slow it way down. You might be as well off putting your money under the mattress right now as investing it somewhere.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
CRITICISM AND DISCOURSE--RATING OBAMA
As I have mentioned before, the Republicans have been seemingly taken over by the loony fringe.One of the problems with the internet today is that anyone with a computer can pollute the blogosphere with his or her opinions, whether founded in reality or not. I find this makes the job of the reasoned critic more difficult. If you criticize some particular action the wingnuts can seize on that as proof that you agree that Obama is illegitimate. Point out errors, even egregious ones, by the fringe and you get accused of "drinking the kool-ade." While many claim Obama is a socialist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/pro terrorist, or whatever, others claim he is no better than Bush. Nuance is not in style.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND DEBATE
Before I really get started, I want to correct something. The OMG book, Cadillac Desert which I recommended, was written by Mark Reisner.
As I was listening and watching today to a couple of commentators, I was struck by how even people who should know better fail to properly challenge people and/or fail to engage in critical analysis and debate. So, I thought that I would include some pointers for times when you are engaging in debate with someone of another outlook, whatever that may be.
First, become informed. As I mentioned before, the answer to almost anything is never more than a couple of mouse clicks away. I heard Stephanie Miller, a radio talk show host, say about six months ago, "facts have that well-known liberal bias." This is so true; I am never afraid to argue on the basis of facts because facts overwhelmingly support my point of view. It's why I have my point of view, I base my opinions on facts, not beliefs.
If you don't know the facts, don't try to fake it, just say you'll look into it and do the research. Similarly, don't take assertions by others on face value. As it has been said before (by Senator Moynihan I believe), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Also, you will often find problems with the sources that your opponent cited. Someone gave me a reference arguing that FDR's policies didn't make any economic progress. When I read the article, I found that the authors compared the US economy in 1940 with that in 1929, before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 the US GDP dropped 42%, so if you don't take that into account, then FDR's policies weren't successful. In short, that argument was totally bogus since it ignored the crash and a 42% drop.
This gets to the next point--challenge facts, assertions, and assumptions. Most people don't know what they are talking about or else get their information from a single, often unreliable source. You don't have to be obnoxious, just say, "Where did you get that information, I'd like to look into it myself." Other challenges include, "Did you consider all the variables? Which are dependent and which are independent variables? What evidence is there that there is a cause and effect relationship?." Don't let the other side oversimplify. Most social/political problems are complex and can't properly be reduced to simple answers. Here's another example. If someone says Obama is a socialist, you can ask--what kind? A Leninist, a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Fabian, a Utopian, a social democrat, or something else? And what policies of his qualify him as that type? You don't have to know the answer, but put the pressure on them to give specific evidence to back up their claims.
Don't let the other side frame the debate. Here's a good example I hear/read often. "Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to make a lot of money with global warming." They want the issue to be Al Gore, not the science or the scientists. Is it Al Gore who came up with the idea of global warming? The answer is no, he just publicized what scientists have been saying for decades. The argument is with climate scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore was born rich and made a ton of money with his cable channel, he doesn't need more money. Also, who has more at stake, fossil fuel companies who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year, or independent scientists and alternative energy companies who have maybe one thousandth as much at stake? So, tell me, how are climate scientist wrong, and what is your educational background that allows you to make an informed judgment as to the accuracy of their work?
Other common things which conservatives do include using straw men and improper conflation or comparison. A straw man argument is picking out an example and using that to claim that it represents the views of a whole group. They usually will take something outrageous, so the answer is to say, "I don't agree with that, what evidence do you have that it represents the opinion of the majority of (fill in the group--liberals, Democrats, politicians, whatever)? Always put the onus on the other person to provide evidence to support their argument; don't let them get away with unsupported assertions.
Conflation means saying that if one thing is so, then so is another thing. An example would be "Since Democrats don't support off shore drilling, they want us to pay more for oil." First, not all Democrats oppose off shore drilling. Second, you can say that Democrats who don't support off shore drilling support alternatives that are less damaging to the environment and thus less expensive in the long run. If this spill is going to cost billions of dollars to clean up and destroy thousands of jobs in the gulf coast, how is that saving us money? Why can't we use natural gas, which we have in abundance on land, instead of oil, for a lot of things? Challenge the assumptions and then point out alternatives and make it clear that one thing does not necessarily equate to another thing.
I read a recent example of unfair comparison that was actually published in the New York Times. The writer said that Obama is engaging in "vilification" even though he calls for bipartisanship. His examples include Obama complaints about the health care companies, Wall Street, and big oil. First, in what way were Obama's criticisms incorrect? Is it vilification to criticize policies that damage the country? Remember, truth is the ultimate defense. Secondly, this author wants the reader to equate Obama's criticism with that of his opponents who have branded him a Nazi, a socialist, someone who wants the terrorists to win, etc. (see my previous post on the views of rank and file Republicans) How many times have we heard the charges that Democrats are unpatriotic , don't love our country, and /or are soft on terror? And yet conservatives would try to equate complaints about policies with these types of personal attacks.
Another common tactic is to compare apples and oranges. I don't think I need to give an example as this is a common tactic and yet, people get away with it all the time. Always insist that comparisons are of the same things.
Next, there is the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument that is made often and rarely challenged. Another way to put it is to differentiate between concept, structure, and execution. For example, for a government program to succeed, you need a useful concept, a workable structure, and good execution. If any one of these things is lacking, you can have failure or only partial success. The usual conservative response is to deny the validity of the concept even if the problem is the structure or the execution. A good example was on the Hardball Show today with Chris Matthews. Arizona just passed a law banning ethnic studies classes in public schools in the state. Speaking in favor was the state superintendent of schools for Arizona, opposed was a professor from Columbia University. The state superintendent cited a passage from a textbook saying that Latinos were oppressed. So they argued over whether or not that was a bad thing to teach, but no one raised the question, "Have Latinos ever been oppressed in the United States?" In other words, was it inaccurate? Even more importantly, if the problem is a couple of different passages in a textbook, why not revise the textbook or get another textbook? They never addressed the basic question of what is the purpose of ethnic studies, is it a valuable purpose and, if it isn't, can it be changed so that it is? If the problem is the execution and/or the structure, why not get a better textbook, issue specific guidelines on how to teach the course, and make sure that those teaching it are qualified? Banning that type of class is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Finally, a very common approach is to classify an anecdote as a fact. In the above argument, the superintendent stated how one student said that after an ethnic studies class she concluded that Latinos were oppressed and she hadn't thought that before. Nobody asked, "Have you done any studies to see how common this attitude is? Do other students have different opinions or results? One anecdote does not make a fact or a trend and yet most people will accept it as one. Challenge them to provide evidence that the anecdote represents reality, or is it just one person's experience (as is often the case). This morning I had a woman tell me that he daughter was paying 56% in income tax. I explained to her that the top Federal rate is 35% and gave her other data. Yet people continue to believe propaganda and anecdotes. We need to challenge the misinformation whenever and wherever possible.
One of the biggest problems today, in my opinion, is the lack of critical thinking and analysis. I hope this provides you with some ideas on how to challenge bogus arguments.
As I was listening and watching today to a couple of commentators, I was struck by how even people who should know better fail to properly challenge people and/or fail to engage in critical analysis and debate. So, I thought that I would include some pointers for times when you are engaging in debate with someone of another outlook, whatever that may be.
First, become informed. As I mentioned before, the answer to almost anything is never more than a couple of mouse clicks away. I heard Stephanie Miller, a radio talk show host, say about six months ago, "facts have that well-known liberal bias." This is so true; I am never afraid to argue on the basis of facts because facts overwhelmingly support my point of view. It's why I have my point of view, I base my opinions on facts, not beliefs.
If you don't know the facts, don't try to fake it, just say you'll look into it and do the research. Similarly, don't take assertions by others on face value. As it has been said before (by Senator Moynihan I believe), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Also, you will often find problems with the sources that your opponent cited. Someone gave me a reference arguing that FDR's policies didn't make any economic progress. When I read the article, I found that the authors compared the US economy in 1940 with that in 1929, before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 the US GDP dropped 42%, so if you don't take that into account, then FDR's policies weren't successful. In short, that argument was totally bogus since it ignored the crash and a 42% drop.
This gets to the next point--challenge facts, assertions, and assumptions. Most people don't know what they are talking about or else get their information from a single, often unreliable source. You don't have to be obnoxious, just say, "Where did you get that information, I'd like to look into it myself." Other challenges include, "Did you consider all the variables? Which are dependent and which are independent variables? What evidence is there that there is a cause and effect relationship?." Don't let the other side oversimplify. Most social/political problems are complex and can't properly be reduced to simple answers. Here's another example. If someone says Obama is a socialist, you can ask--what kind? A Leninist, a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Fabian, a Utopian, a social democrat, or something else? And what policies of his qualify him as that type? You don't have to know the answer, but put the pressure on them to give specific evidence to back up their claims.
Don't let the other side frame the debate. Here's a good example I hear/read often. "Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to make a lot of money with global warming." They want the issue to be Al Gore, not the science or the scientists. Is it Al Gore who came up with the idea of global warming? The answer is no, he just publicized what scientists have been saying for decades. The argument is with climate scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore was born rich and made a ton of money with his cable channel, he doesn't need more money. Also, who has more at stake, fossil fuel companies who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year, or independent scientists and alternative energy companies who have maybe one thousandth as much at stake? So, tell me, how are climate scientist wrong, and what is your educational background that allows you to make an informed judgment as to the accuracy of their work?
Other common things which conservatives do include using straw men and improper conflation or comparison. A straw man argument is picking out an example and using that to claim that it represents the views of a whole group. They usually will take something outrageous, so the answer is to say, "I don't agree with that, what evidence do you have that it represents the opinion of the majority of (fill in the group--liberals, Democrats, politicians, whatever)? Always put the onus on the other person to provide evidence to support their argument; don't let them get away with unsupported assertions.
Conflation means saying that if one thing is so, then so is another thing. An example would be "Since Democrats don't support off shore drilling, they want us to pay more for oil." First, not all Democrats oppose off shore drilling. Second, you can say that Democrats who don't support off shore drilling support alternatives that are less damaging to the environment and thus less expensive in the long run. If this spill is going to cost billions of dollars to clean up and destroy thousands of jobs in the gulf coast, how is that saving us money? Why can't we use natural gas, which we have in abundance on land, instead of oil, for a lot of things? Challenge the assumptions and then point out alternatives and make it clear that one thing does not necessarily equate to another thing.
I read a recent example of unfair comparison that was actually published in the New York Times. The writer said that Obama is engaging in "vilification" even though he calls for bipartisanship. His examples include Obama complaints about the health care companies, Wall Street, and big oil. First, in what way were Obama's criticisms incorrect? Is it vilification to criticize policies that damage the country? Remember, truth is the ultimate defense. Secondly, this author wants the reader to equate Obama's criticism with that of his opponents who have branded him a Nazi, a socialist, someone who wants the terrorists to win, etc. (see my previous post on the views of rank and file Republicans) How many times have we heard the charges that Democrats are unpatriotic , don't love our country, and /or are soft on terror? And yet conservatives would try to equate complaints about policies with these types of personal attacks.
Another common tactic is to compare apples and oranges. I don't think I need to give an example as this is a common tactic and yet, people get away with it all the time. Always insist that comparisons are of the same things.
Next, there is the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument that is made often and rarely challenged. Another way to put it is to differentiate between concept, structure, and execution. For example, for a government program to succeed, you need a useful concept, a workable structure, and good execution. If any one of these things is lacking, you can have failure or only partial success. The usual conservative response is to deny the validity of the concept even if the problem is the structure or the execution. A good example was on the Hardball Show today with Chris Matthews. Arizona just passed a law banning ethnic studies classes in public schools in the state. Speaking in favor was the state superintendent of schools for Arizona, opposed was a professor from Columbia University. The state superintendent cited a passage from a textbook saying that Latinos were oppressed. So they argued over whether or not that was a bad thing to teach, but no one raised the question, "Have Latinos ever been oppressed in the United States?" In other words, was it inaccurate? Even more importantly, if the problem is a couple of different passages in a textbook, why not revise the textbook or get another textbook? They never addressed the basic question of what is the purpose of ethnic studies, is it a valuable purpose and, if it isn't, can it be changed so that it is? If the problem is the execution and/or the structure, why not get a better textbook, issue specific guidelines on how to teach the course, and make sure that those teaching it are qualified? Banning that type of class is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Finally, a very common approach is to classify an anecdote as a fact. In the above argument, the superintendent stated how one student said that after an ethnic studies class she concluded that Latinos were oppressed and she hadn't thought that before. Nobody asked, "Have you done any studies to see how common this attitude is? Do other students have different opinions or results? One anecdote does not make a fact or a trend and yet most people will accept it as one. Challenge them to provide evidence that the anecdote represents reality, or is it just one person's experience (as is often the case). This morning I had a woman tell me that he daughter was paying 56% in income tax. I explained to her that the top Federal rate is 35% and gave her other data. Yet people continue to believe propaganda and anecdotes. We need to challenge the misinformation whenever and wherever possible.
One of the biggest problems today, in my opinion, is the lack of critical thinking and analysis. I hope this provides you with some ideas on how to challenge bogus arguments.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
OMG BOOKS
I like to read and I read a fair amount. Over the years I have been greatly influenced by some books, books I call OH, MY GOD books because of astounding information that leaves you saying, Oh, my God! I want to recommend the following.
Although it has been superseded, at the time The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer was the first book to comprehensively look at the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is still worthwhile.
If you want to learn of the incredible stupidity and wastefulness of World War I and the leading generals, read In Flanders Field by Leon Wolf. It is an astounding expose, especially of General Douglas Haig.
Having been brought up at a time when cowboys were good and Indians were bad and the popular view was that simple stereotype, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown is a revelation. If you don't want to go out and scalp a white man after reading it, there's something wrong with you (I exaggerate, of course).
Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips opened my eyes to the structural problems of the US economy. Written in 2002, it practically predicted the economic crash we have seen.
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine ranks way up there as a book telling you important stuff you had no idea was going on. Highly recommended, relevant, and very recent.
One of the bad things about having so many books is that sometimes I can't find something when I want it. The next book is Cadillac Desert and I can't remember the author's last name. It's Marc and his last name starts with S. A highly entertaining book about water policy in the West, another important subject which few people know about, even though they should. By the way, if you go to Amazon books or Abe Books web sites and enter the title, you can find the book and author's name.
Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk is a great book about the Lebanese "civil war." If you want to learn about the Middle East, you should start with this book.
So many books, so little time.
Although it has been superseded, at the time The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer was the first book to comprehensively look at the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is still worthwhile.
If you want to learn of the incredible stupidity and wastefulness of World War I and the leading generals, read In Flanders Field by Leon Wolf. It is an astounding expose, especially of General Douglas Haig.
Having been brought up at a time when cowboys were good and Indians were bad and the popular view was that simple stereotype, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown is a revelation. If you don't want to go out and scalp a white man after reading it, there's something wrong with you (I exaggerate, of course).
Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips opened my eyes to the structural problems of the US economy. Written in 2002, it practically predicted the economic crash we have seen.
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine ranks way up there as a book telling you important stuff you had no idea was going on. Highly recommended, relevant, and very recent.
One of the bad things about having so many books is that sometimes I can't find something when I want it. The next book is Cadillac Desert and I can't remember the author's last name. It's Marc and his last name starts with S. A highly entertaining book about water policy in the West, another important subject which few people know about, even though they should. By the way, if you go to Amazon books or Abe Books web sites and enter the title, you can find the book and author's name.
Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk is a great book about the Lebanese "civil war." If you want to learn about the Middle East, you should start with this book.
So many books, so little time.
HOW MANY TIMES?
Or the Decline and Fall of Conservative Thought
(With apologies to Bob Dylan) How many times must some people err, before they are forever scorned? The answer my friend is blowin' in the b.s. , the b.s. of conservative spin.
With the latest news, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and almost 300,000 new jobs created in April, once again the vacuity of present day conservative thought is exposed to anyone with half a brain. How many times have conservatives railed against the failure of the stimulus bill, warned of the dire consequences of budget deficits and looming inflation? Drill, baby, drill, it is perfectly safe, we were told over and over again. Time after time their policies have proven, at best ill-advised, at worst, absolutely disastrous. And yet they continue to pontificate in denial of reality, ignorant of facts, and still have their views propounded widely, often without any critical analysis.
I recently saw a scene from a rather execrable movie from 40 years ago or so, called A Guide for the Married Man, or something like that. I had seen it originally and found it distasteful, and re-viewing part of it, it has now become dated and even more unpleasant than I remembered. However, the scene I saw is reminiscent of the approach that conservatives take nowadays. A character played by Walter Matthau, as I recall, is advising his young associate on what to do if his wife catches him cheating. Matthau's wife walks in on him in bed with another woman and starts yelling at him. Matthau, totally unperturbed and calm, gets out of bed and dresses himself while his paramour does the same. All the time Matthau responds quietly to his wife, denying everything and expressing surprise at what she is saying until he is fully dressed and the other woman has left. Then he tells his wife she must be imagining everything and lo, and behold, the bed is made, the woman is gone and Matthau is fully dressed and his wife begins to wonder if she is crazy and did imagine it. This seems to be the policy of the GOP, especially conservatives. Shortly after the crash Greenspan admitted that his policy of no regulation was wrong. Now he's saying it wasn't his fault, it was congressional policies, etc. With the oil spill, what have conservatives done? Re-evaluated their position? No, criticized Obama for reacting too slowly, never mind that a recent AP analysis shows that the administration reacted quickly, as soon as problems became known. The conservative mantra is something like "Whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain, I am the Great Oz."
Early in FDR's presidency one of his top advisers, Raymond Moley, said to FDR, "You realize, then that you're taking an enormous step away from the philosophy of equalitarianism and laissez-faire?" FDR responded, "If that philosophy hadn't proved to be bankrupt, Herbert Hoover would be sitting here right now."(1) This should be true today, de-regulation and laissez-faire have been shown once again to lead to disastrous consequences, but conservatives won't or can't admit it. Here's a widely quoted remark by "a senior Bush official", which sounds an awfully lot like something Karl Rove would say. Talking to a journalist, the official said that guys like him are "in what we call the reality-based community"--people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." (2)Unfortunately, the Iraqis didn't quite see it that way and didn't care what Bush's reality was.
The Republican party has been taken over by people who have firmly rejected a reality based view. In case you missed it, two different surveys found almost the same exact numbers, so the following is about as accurate as polling gets. 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the Antichrist (at least they leave some room for doubt!). 38% say that he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. 45% believe he was not born in the United States, 57% believe he is a Muslim, and 67% believe he is a socialist. (3) How shall I put this delicately? These people are bat-shit crazy.
Even so-called conservative intellectuals are unreliable. I used to respect George Will even though I disagreed with him. However, just within the past 6 months or so I have caught two major mistakes in columns and another case where he took something out of context so as to mislead his readers. Thomas Sowell, who has a Phd. in Economics, is a joke. He "proved" that Barney Frank was responsible for the economic crash by quoting something he said in 2003, ignoring the fact that Barney Frank had no power then since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Also, what Frank said then was not inaccurate or dangerous since the abuses hadn't started yet. Sowell's analyses are sloppy and rarely rise above the level of propaganda. The same is true of Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of military history. When he comments about Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems as if his study of military history never included guerrilla war as he makes pronouncements that are ahistorical and border on hysterical. His comments on politics and internal policy are even worse.
The Republican Party needs another Jack Kemp. Someone who actually thinks and tries to devise solutions to problems using conservative policies. He seems to be the last creative thinker in the conservative camp. Now conservatism can be boiled down to a few simple ideas: cut taxes, reduce the size of government, except for defense, and attack/invade countries we don't like. If McCain had won the last election, we probably would have seen something akin to modern day Hooverism and the economy really in the tank. We also would probably have attacked Iran by now, setting off a new oil crisis, dwarfing what we saw in the 70's.
What's truly frightening is that at a time when you can find out the answer to almost any question, when information is available like never before with just a few clicks of your mouse, people seem more ignorant than ever.
(1) The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., p. 98.
(2)The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, p. 243.
(3) The Daily Beast, March 23, 2010.
(With apologies to Bob Dylan) How many times must some people err, before they are forever scorned? The answer my friend is blowin' in the b.s. , the b.s. of conservative spin.
With the latest news, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and almost 300,000 new jobs created in April, once again the vacuity of present day conservative thought is exposed to anyone with half a brain. How many times have conservatives railed against the failure of the stimulus bill, warned of the dire consequences of budget deficits and looming inflation? Drill, baby, drill, it is perfectly safe, we were told over and over again. Time after time their policies have proven, at best ill-advised, at worst, absolutely disastrous. And yet they continue to pontificate in denial of reality, ignorant of facts, and still have their views propounded widely, often without any critical analysis.
I recently saw a scene from a rather execrable movie from 40 years ago or so, called A Guide for the Married Man, or something like that. I had seen it originally and found it distasteful, and re-viewing part of it, it has now become dated and even more unpleasant than I remembered. However, the scene I saw is reminiscent of the approach that conservatives take nowadays. A character played by Walter Matthau, as I recall, is advising his young associate on what to do if his wife catches him cheating. Matthau's wife walks in on him in bed with another woman and starts yelling at him. Matthau, totally unperturbed and calm, gets out of bed and dresses himself while his paramour does the same. All the time Matthau responds quietly to his wife, denying everything and expressing surprise at what she is saying until he is fully dressed and the other woman has left. Then he tells his wife she must be imagining everything and lo, and behold, the bed is made, the woman is gone and Matthau is fully dressed and his wife begins to wonder if she is crazy and did imagine it. This seems to be the policy of the GOP, especially conservatives. Shortly after the crash Greenspan admitted that his policy of no regulation was wrong. Now he's saying it wasn't his fault, it was congressional policies, etc. With the oil spill, what have conservatives done? Re-evaluated their position? No, criticized Obama for reacting too slowly, never mind that a recent AP analysis shows that the administration reacted quickly, as soon as problems became known. The conservative mantra is something like "Whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain, I am the Great Oz."
Early in FDR's presidency one of his top advisers, Raymond Moley, said to FDR, "You realize, then that you're taking an enormous step away from the philosophy of equalitarianism and laissez-faire?" FDR responded, "If that philosophy hadn't proved to be bankrupt, Herbert Hoover would be sitting here right now."(1) This should be true today, de-regulation and laissez-faire have been shown once again to lead to disastrous consequences, but conservatives won't or can't admit it. Here's a widely quoted remark by "a senior Bush official", which sounds an awfully lot like something Karl Rove would say. Talking to a journalist, the official said that guys like him are "in what we call the reality-based community"--people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." (2)Unfortunately, the Iraqis didn't quite see it that way and didn't care what Bush's reality was.
The Republican party has been taken over by people who have firmly rejected a reality based view. In case you missed it, two different surveys found almost the same exact numbers, so the following is about as accurate as polling gets. 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the Antichrist (at least they leave some room for doubt!). 38% say that he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. 45% believe he was not born in the United States, 57% believe he is a Muslim, and 67% believe he is a socialist. (3) How shall I put this delicately? These people are bat-shit crazy.
Even so-called conservative intellectuals are unreliable. I used to respect George Will even though I disagreed with him. However, just within the past 6 months or so I have caught two major mistakes in columns and another case where he took something out of context so as to mislead his readers. Thomas Sowell, who has a Phd. in Economics, is a joke. He "proved" that Barney Frank was responsible for the economic crash by quoting something he said in 2003, ignoring the fact that Barney Frank had no power then since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Also, what Frank said then was not inaccurate or dangerous since the abuses hadn't started yet. Sowell's analyses are sloppy and rarely rise above the level of propaganda. The same is true of Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of military history. When he comments about Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems as if his study of military history never included guerrilla war as he makes pronouncements that are ahistorical and border on hysterical. His comments on politics and internal policy are even worse.
The Republican Party needs another Jack Kemp. Someone who actually thinks and tries to devise solutions to problems using conservative policies. He seems to be the last creative thinker in the conservative camp. Now conservatism can be boiled down to a few simple ideas: cut taxes, reduce the size of government, except for defense, and attack/invade countries we don't like. If McCain had won the last election, we probably would have seen something akin to modern day Hooverism and the economy really in the tank. We also would probably have attacked Iran by now, setting off a new oil crisis, dwarfing what we saw in the 70's.
What's truly frightening is that at a time when you can find out the answer to almost any question, when information is available like never before with just a few clicks of your mouse, people seem more ignorant than ever.
(1) The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., p. 98.
(2)The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, p. 243.
(3) The Daily Beast, March 23, 2010.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
MORE ON CORRUPTION
There is something I had meant to mention in my last post plus some new information which I thought I should add. First, the old. It was the collapse of Lehman Brothers that was the immediate cause of our current economic crisis. Something that has come out relatively recently is that Lehman Bros. had engaged in what is called a Repo 105 maneuver (I hadn't heard of it before either). What that means is that they underwent an audit by one of the big accounting firms and prior to that audit they sold $50 billion in bad assets to another company and then repurchased them after the audit. In short, they made a paper or phony sale in order to hide their weakness. A former Lehman V.P. has testified that in May, 2008 he sent a letter to top executives warning them of concerns he had about their accounting practices and he was fired immediately thereafter. The company went under September 15, 2008. Think this doesn't affect you? A California representative has said that 40 municipalities across the nation lost $1.7 billion in total with the collapse of Lehman. All this is found in the LA Times, 4/21/10.
In today's LA Times is the report that the former CEO of KB Homes, one of the west's largest homebuilders, was just found guilty of four felonies related to backdating stock options. According to LA Times business columnist Tom Petruno, illegal backdating has been found at hundreds of companies (and who knows how many instances haven't been found).
Although I haven't read the books yet, I have seen the authors interviewed and I would recommend books by Michael Lewis (the title escapes me, but it is #1 on non-fiction best seller lists) and 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and another fellow, I think his name is Kwak. They had an extensive interview on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS that was aired April 16, 2010 and I would recommend it for anyone who is interested. Also, although it is older and covers corporate misdeeds prior to the 2008 meltdown, a good read is Pigs At the Trough by Arianna Huffington.
In today's LA Times is the report that the former CEO of KB Homes, one of the west's largest homebuilders, was just found guilty of four felonies related to backdating stock options. According to LA Times business columnist Tom Petruno, illegal backdating has been found at hundreds of companies (and who knows how many instances haven't been found).
Although I haven't read the books yet, I have seen the authors interviewed and I would recommend books by Michael Lewis (the title escapes me, but it is #1 on non-fiction best seller lists) and 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and another fellow, I think his name is Kwak. They had an extensive interview on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS that was aired April 16, 2010 and I would recommend it for anyone who is interested. Also, although it is older and covers corporate misdeeds prior to the 2008 meltdown, a good read is Pigs At the Trough by Arianna Huffington.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
OBSERVATIONS, MUSINGS, AND RANTS
Tea Party Foolishness
Since August the Tea Party Movement seems to have dominated much of the national political discussion, despite the fact that their main premise is incorrect and their positions are often illogical and sometimes even inconsistent. Additionally, we have started to see such nonsense as people claiming that extending unemployment benefits creates dependency and that these "lazy" people are bankrupting our country. This is all part of the old Reagan trick of blaming the poor for societal problems and saying that government policies to help the poor do not help, but hurt our economy.
I have discussed the whole issue of income inequality previously, but it is probably useful to return again to some main points, especially since more information is available since I wrote last year. Regarding the charge that we are taxed too much already, I urge anyone who is interested to google income tax rates and check out the taxfoundation.org website. It gives all the tax tables since the inception of the income tax in 1917. Income taxes right now are at their lowest in about 75 years. From 1964 to 1981, the top (or marginal) rate was 70%. It was lowered to 50% in 1986, and then to 38.5% in 1987. It is now 35%. So, all during Reagan's presidency, the tax rate was higher than it is now. When the Bush tax cuts expire, the top rate will go up to 39.5%, or one percentage point higher than the last two years of Reagan. Likewise, capital gains are only 15%, down from 20% and, earlier, 25%. Also, the capital gains rate was extended to cover dividends under Bush, a new feature. This is one reason why in 2009 the top 400 income earners paid an average of only 17% on their income. Thus, as it should be clear, our income tax rates right now are at almost historic lows and the tea party movement's main complaint is, to put a simply, a giant load of crap. Recent reports are that either 47% or 49% (I have seen both figures) will not have to pay any taxes this year. As an added point, you should be aware that Reagan sponsored what was called then the largest tax increase in history (in dollar terms, not percentage) by increasing payroll taxes to keep Social Security afloat. Payroll taxes are not as progressive as income taxes, so that this tax increase hit the poor and middle classes more than the rich, just as Bush's tax cuts give much greater benefit to the rich than the middle class or poor.
A major result of these tax policies has been an incredible increase in inequality. When adjusted for inflation, average wages are actually down by about 12% when compared to 1973 (this is the date usually used) while the top 10%, 1% and one tenth of one percent has increased tremendously. The smaller the group, the larger their increase. While CEO's used to get about 35 times the income of the average wage earners in their companies, they now get about 350 times as much (again, there are differing figures here, but this is representative). Income inequality in the US is now the worst it has been since about 1920 (pardon the bold, but this word processor on this site has started defaulting to it even though I keep trying to change it back). Depending on whether you consider Russia a developed country, we have the worst income inequality of any developed country in the world, about on par with Mexico. According to a recent study (The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett), greater inequality means higher rates of teen pregnancy, infant mortality, obesity, mental illness, drug use, imprisonment, and homicide. It also means less economic growth and more economic instability. Here are the reasons why.
It is a well known economic fact that the middle class and the poor spend a greater portion of their income than does the rich; after all there is only so much you can spend. Let's look at one of my favorite examples--hedge fund managers. First, they make fabulous amounts of money and yet pay at the capital gains rate of only 15%. A recent NY Times article found that the top 25 hedge fund managers made $25 + billion in 2009, or an average of a little more than one billion each. FYI, the low was $350 million and the high was $4 billion. These 25 individuals made as much as 500,000 people who made $50,000 each. 25=500,000. Imagine if you made $1 billion in one year. Could you spend it all? The fact is that they can't and they don't. So what do they do? They speculate. It is the super rich who drive the speculative markets, whether it be real estate, futures trading, stocks, or derivatives. Remember that in 1987 Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 38.5%? What happened two years later? The S&L debacle due to a bubble in real estate collapsing. If those hedge fund managers had to pay the old tax rate of 70%, those poor dears would have to get by on an averate of $300 million a year. Oh, the horror! Government revenue just from this one small group of 25 would increase by $14 billion per year.
Now, let's look at some obscene pay in other areas. First, you should know that the financial sector of our economy has gone from about 12% of our economy to 21% and, even more telling, the financial sector accounts for 45% of the profits in the economy. Wall St., just from 2003 to 2006, paid $121 billion to its executives (Dylan Ratigan Show, 4/7/10) Just since January of this year, Goldman Sachs has awarded $21 billion in bonuses to its top executives (Manchester Guardian, 4/19/10). I think it is safe to say that in the last decade, Wall St. executives have made over $200 billion. What do they get that money for? Making loans to businesses, investing in new technologies, helping our economy? No, they get that money mostly for gambling and conning other people out of their money. A Goldman Sachs executive testified recently that while they were selling derivatives to investors and assuring them they were safe, they knew they were risky and purchased credit default swaps, betting that they would go down in value. And this isn't even what they were indicted for. Of the $181 billion that went to AIG in TARP funds, at least $40 billion was pass through money to pay off Goldman Sachs for the credit default swaps they bought. If you think this is an isolated case, you haven't been paying attention to the news. Did you know, for example, that two different people were indicted recently for Ponzi schemes that took $1 and $3 billion respectively from investors? It was minor news because while that would have been a mjaor event in the past, now it has been dwarfed by Bernie Madoff, and Wall St. scams.
Here's another example. A former head of United Health Care made $1.2 billion, mostly in stock options, in about 7 years. Because it was discovered that many of these options were illegally backdated, he had to pay a fine of $400 million, leaving him with only $800 million. Since these were stock options, they would be covered by the capital gains rate and taxed at only 15%. That fine, by the way, went to the government, not to stock holders or, heaven forbid, those buying premiums from United Health care. The $1.2 billion he collected would have paid for the premiums of almost 30,000 people a year for 7 years, assuming a premium of $500 per month.
Now, let's take a look at those awful, lazy people getting unemployment benefits. The average unemployment check is $335 per week, or $17,420 per year. A recent story said that 44% of those getting unemployment had been on unemployment for 6 months, and 30% for at least a year. Since there are about 11 million unemployed, that means about 3.3 million were on unemployment for at least one year during 2009. Going back to the hedge fund managers, those 25 people made as much as between 1.4 and 1.5 million people on unemployment, or almost half of those who had been unemployed for at least a year. If those hedge fund managers paid at the old 70% rate, their income tax alone would have paid for about 1 million of the long term unemployed. I hope this gives you some idea of the extent of the income inequality in this country and how our system is set up to reward the super rich, many of whom contribute very little to our ec0onomy.
Now, let's looks at the charge that all these people on unemployment would become addicted to the "free money." This is such nonsense that one hardly knows where to begin. Let's look at the Depression. President Hoover reportedly said something to the effect that all the men selling apples on the street was a sign that more people were going into business for themselves. He also was adamantly opposed to any governmental relief such as unemployment payments. This, as much as almost anything, was responsible for plunging the nation deeper into depression. With no income, they couldn't buy anything, so more businesses went out of business, leading to more unemployment and so on. It also led to more foreclosures which led to a tremendous drop in property values which led to more bank failures, which led to more unemployment whilch led to , you get the idea. Unemployment payments help stop a deflationary spiral. They keep the recession from getting much worse. During the 90's, when Clinton was president, the unemployment rate at one point dropped to below 4%, which as economists tell us, is full employment since there are always people moving, changing jobs, businesses going out of business, etc. so that there will always be some unemployment. Why would the population gladly embrace employment then, but spurn it now for $335 per week? Secondly, psychologists will tell you that for many people, their job defines their worth and losing their job greatly reduces their self-esteem. It is considered a major stressor in life comparable to death of a loved one or a messy divorce. Thirdly, it completely ignores today's present economic situation. There are over 5 applicants for every job opening, on average. It's not a lack of people trying, but a lack of jobs available.
Another tea party mantra is smaller government and reduce the deficit. It's obvious that most of these people have never bothered to learn anything about the government. It's astounding to me that any information you want is just a few clicks away on the internet, but these people and many others never bother to find out the facts. Defense and homeland security cost about $715 billion, or about 20% of the budget, and half of the so-called discretionary budget. Other major expenditures (by percentage) social security 20%, Medicare/Medicaid 21%, interest on the debt, 6%, safety net programs (food stamps, unemployment, e.g.) 14%, and federal pensions and veterans benefits 7%. These programs take up 92% of the total budget. If you really want to reduce government you need to cut defense spending, medicare/medicaid, and social security. Yet these same people don't want to cut these things. Revenues plunged to 15% of GDP, the lowest it has been in decades. The solution is simple, get people back to work, increase taxes on the rich ($1 million per year) and super rich ($10 million per year) and we will probably have to make some adjustments to Medicare and Social Security. Remember this, Herbert Hoover passionately believed in small government and balanced budgets and those policies produced the worst depression in US history. Had we followed the same policies this time, we probably would have had an even worse depression now than in the 30's.
Since August the Tea Party Movement seems to have dominated much of the national political discussion, despite the fact that their main premise is incorrect and their positions are often illogical and sometimes even inconsistent. Additionally, we have started to see such nonsense as people claiming that extending unemployment benefits creates dependency and that these "lazy" people are bankrupting our country. This is all part of the old Reagan trick of blaming the poor for societal problems and saying that government policies to help the poor do not help, but hurt our economy.
I have discussed the whole issue of income inequality previously, but it is probably useful to return again to some main points, especially since more information is available since I wrote last year. Regarding the charge that we are taxed too much already, I urge anyone who is interested to google income tax rates and check out the taxfoundation.org website. It gives all the tax tables since the inception of the income tax in 1917. Income taxes right now are at their lowest in about 75 years. From 1964 to 1981, the top (or marginal) rate was 70%. It was lowered to 50% in 1986, and then to 38.5% in 1987. It is now 35%. So, all during Reagan's presidency, the tax rate was higher than it is now. When the Bush tax cuts expire, the top rate will go up to 39.5%, or one percentage point higher than the last two years of Reagan. Likewise, capital gains are only 15%, down from 20% and, earlier, 25%. Also, the capital gains rate was extended to cover dividends under Bush, a new feature. This is one reason why in 2009 the top 400 income earners paid an average of only 17% on their income. Thus, as it should be clear, our income tax rates right now are at almost historic lows and the tea party movement's main complaint is, to put a simply, a giant load of crap. Recent reports are that either 47% or 49% (I have seen both figures) will not have to pay any taxes this year. As an added point, you should be aware that Reagan sponsored what was called then the largest tax increase in history (in dollar terms, not percentage) by increasing payroll taxes to keep Social Security afloat. Payroll taxes are not as progressive as income taxes, so that this tax increase hit the poor and middle classes more than the rich, just as Bush's tax cuts give much greater benefit to the rich than the middle class or poor.
A major result of these tax policies has been an incredible increase in inequality. When adjusted for inflation, average wages are actually down by about 12% when compared to 1973 (this is the date usually used) while the top 10%, 1% and one tenth of one percent has increased tremendously. The smaller the group, the larger their increase. While CEO's used to get about 35 times the income of the average wage earners in their companies, they now get about 350 times as much (again, there are differing figures here, but this is representative). Income inequality in the US is now the worst it has been since about 1920 (pardon the bold, but this word processor on this site has started defaulting to it even though I keep trying to change it back). Depending on whether you consider Russia a developed country, we have the worst income inequality of any developed country in the world, about on par with Mexico. According to a recent study (The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett), greater inequality means higher rates of teen pregnancy, infant mortality, obesity, mental illness, drug use, imprisonment, and homicide. It also means less economic growth and more economic instability. Here are the reasons why.
It is a well known economic fact that the middle class and the poor spend a greater portion of their income than does the rich; after all there is only so much you can spend. Let's look at one of my favorite examples--hedge fund managers. First, they make fabulous amounts of money and yet pay at the capital gains rate of only 15%. A recent NY Times article found that the top 25 hedge fund managers made $25 + billion in 2009, or an average of a little more than one billion each. FYI, the low was $350 million and the high was $4 billion. These 25 individuals made as much as 500,000 people who made $50,000 each. 25=500,000. Imagine if you made $1 billion in one year. Could you spend it all? The fact is that they can't and they don't. So what do they do? They speculate. It is the super rich who drive the speculative markets, whether it be real estate, futures trading, stocks, or derivatives. Remember that in 1987 Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 38.5%? What happened two years later? The S&L debacle due to a bubble in real estate collapsing. If those hedge fund managers had to pay the old tax rate of 70%, those poor dears would have to get by on an averate of $300 million a year. Oh, the horror! Government revenue just from this one small group of 25 would increase by $14 billion per year.
Now, let's look at some obscene pay in other areas. First, you should know that the financial sector of our economy has gone from about 12% of our economy to 21% and, even more telling, the financial sector accounts for 45% of the profits in the economy. Wall St., just from 2003 to 2006, paid $121 billion to its executives (Dylan Ratigan Show, 4/7/10) Just since January of this year, Goldman Sachs has awarded $21 billion in bonuses to its top executives (Manchester Guardian, 4/19/10). I think it is safe to say that in the last decade, Wall St. executives have made over $200 billion. What do they get that money for? Making loans to businesses, investing in new technologies, helping our economy? No, they get that money mostly for gambling and conning other people out of their money. A Goldman Sachs executive testified recently that while they were selling derivatives to investors and assuring them they were safe, they knew they were risky and purchased credit default swaps, betting that they would go down in value. And this isn't even what they were indicted for. Of the $181 billion that went to AIG in TARP funds, at least $40 billion was pass through money to pay off Goldman Sachs for the credit default swaps they bought. If you think this is an isolated case, you haven't been paying attention to the news. Did you know, for example, that two different people were indicted recently for Ponzi schemes that took $1 and $3 billion respectively from investors? It was minor news because while that would have been a mjaor event in the past, now it has been dwarfed by Bernie Madoff, and Wall St. scams.
Here's another example. A former head of United Health Care made $1.2 billion, mostly in stock options, in about 7 years. Because it was discovered that many of these options were illegally backdated, he had to pay a fine of $400 million, leaving him with only $800 million. Since these were stock options, they would be covered by the capital gains rate and taxed at only 15%. That fine, by the way, went to the government, not to stock holders or, heaven forbid, those buying premiums from United Health care. The $1.2 billion he collected would have paid for the premiums of almost 30,000 people a year for 7 years, assuming a premium of $500 per month.
Now, let's take a look at those awful, lazy people getting unemployment benefits. The average unemployment check is $335 per week, or $17,420 per year. A recent story said that 44% of those getting unemployment had been on unemployment for 6 months, and 30% for at least a year. Since there are about 11 million unemployed, that means about 3.3 million were on unemployment for at least one year during 2009. Going back to the hedge fund managers, those 25 people made as much as between 1.4 and 1.5 million people on unemployment, or almost half of those who had been unemployed for at least a year. If those hedge fund managers paid at the old 70% rate, their income tax alone would have paid for about 1 million of the long term unemployed. I hope this gives you some idea of the extent of the income inequality in this country and how our system is set up to reward the super rich, many of whom contribute very little to our ec0onomy.
Now, let's looks at the charge that all these people on unemployment would become addicted to the "free money." This is such nonsense that one hardly knows where to begin. Let's look at the Depression. President Hoover reportedly said something to the effect that all the men selling apples on the street was a sign that more people were going into business for themselves. He also was adamantly opposed to any governmental relief such as unemployment payments. This, as much as almost anything, was responsible for plunging the nation deeper into depression. With no income, they couldn't buy anything, so more businesses went out of business, leading to more unemployment and so on. It also led to more foreclosures which led to a tremendous drop in property values which led to more bank failures, which led to more unemployment whilch led to , you get the idea. Unemployment payments help stop a deflationary spiral. They keep the recession from getting much worse. During the 90's, when Clinton was president, the unemployment rate at one point dropped to below 4%, which as economists tell us, is full employment since there are always people moving, changing jobs, businesses going out of business, etc. so that there will always be some unemployment. Why would the population gladly embrace employment then, but spurn it now for $335 per week? Secondly, psychologists will tell you that for many people, their job defines their worth and losing their job greatly reduces their self-esteem. It is considered a major stressor in life comparable to death of a loved one or a messy divorce. Thirdly, it completely ignores today's present economic situation. There are over 5 applicants for every job opening, on average. It's not a lack of people trying, but a lack of jobs available.
Another tea party mantra is smaller government and reduce the deficit. It's obvious that most of these people have never bothered to learn anything about the government. It's astounding to me that any information you want is just a few clicks away on the internet, but these people and many others never bother to find out the facts. Defense and homeland security cost about $715 billion, or about 20% of the budget, and half of the so-called discretionary budget. Other major expenditures (by percentage) social security 20%, Medicare/Medicaid 21%, interest on the debt, 6%, safety net programs (food stamps, unemployment, e.g.) 14%, and federal pensions and veterans benefits 7%. These programs take up 92% of the total budget. If you really want to reduce government you need to cut defense spending, medicare/medicaid, and social security. Yet these same people don't want to cut these things. Revenues plunged to 15% of GDP, the lowest it has been in decades. The solution is simple, get people back to work, increase taxes on the rich ($1 million per year) and super rich ($10 million per year) and we will probably have to make some adjustments to Medicare and Social Security. Remember this, Herbert Hoover passionately believed in small government and balanced budgets and those policies produced the worst depression in US history. Had we followed the same policies this time, we probably would have had an even worse depression now than in the 30's.
Friday, April 16, 2010
OBSERVATIONS, MUSINGS AND RANTS
Since my last post I have been spending most of my time commenting on politics on various web sites, with the idea that I could reach more people. There are some things, however, which require this forum. A lot has happened since my last post and an even larger amount of misinformation has polluted the media in the meantime. I have been gathering a lot of information which I hope will help counter the misinformation and I am providing it here for your consideration. One thing I would also like to add is that nothing I have written previously has proven incorrect or required revision.
Health Care
When someone brings up the health care bill for criticism, you might want to point out the following facts. In 1974 President Nixon proposed to Congress that they create a health care bill which would require all employers, no exceptions, to provide their employees with health care. The government would then provide health care for those who were not employed. The current health care bill exempts small businesses with less than 50 employees from having to provide health care and provides tax breaks for those small businesses that do provide it. The Nixon proposal was more radical, more anti-business than the current bill. In 1993 a conservative economist came up with the idea of mandating people to buy health care insurance as an alternative to the Clinton health care bill. This was incorporated into a proposed bill introduced by 21 Republican senators and one Republican congressman. The idea of an insurance exchange was first devised by an analyst at the Heritage Foundation in 2006 and then incorporated into the health care plan of Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The Heritage Foundation is a very right wing think tank. Thus, all the major provisions of the health care bill are Republican ideas. So, when Newt Gingrich calls it a radical social experiment, he is lying. Because he has a Phd. in history, he can't claim ignorance. When people call it socialism or taking over health care, they are just plain wrong. FYI, Germany first adopted a national health care system in the 1880's under those radical reformers, Otto von Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Even with the new bill, we will have the most unregulated system and the least coverage of our citizens of any industrialized country in the world. Remember when Rush Limbaugh said he was moving to Costa Rica if the bill passed? They have a much more socialized system than we do; it is very similar to a medicare for all option.
Amazing as all the past lying about the bill was, it continues even after passage. The St. Petersburg Times called the charge of death panels the biggest lie of 2009. At one tea party rally a speaker compared the health care bill to genocide. Does anyone remember what Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S. Carolina) was talking about when he yelled out "You lie!" to President Obama? President Obama had just said that any bill he signed would not cover illegal aliens. So, who lied, Wilson or Obama? All these lies get thrown out there and the lies and liars get overlooked or forgotten because they are followed by more and more lies that grab the headlines. The latest big lie is that the bill will have the IRS hire 16,000 agents to enforce the requirement to have health insurance. First, the bill specifically states that if someone does not buy insurance and does not pay the fine that is assessed for that, there are no criminal penalties nor can the IRS put a lien against any property of the taxpayer. Thus, there is no real enforcement of the mandate. Secondly, the IRS currently has about 17,000 auditors/enforcement agents for all the taxpayers in the US. There are currently 47 million uninsured, and 32 million are covered by the bill (illegal immigrants make up most of the rest). Previous studies have found that 80% of the uninsured are working poor, and they will get subsidies or Medicaid coverage under the bill. Thus, if everybody else defies the mandate, you will have, at most, 7 million taxpayers who will be fined. So, according to the big lie, we will double the number of IRS agents for a maximum subset of 7 million people who can't be really punished anyway.
Obama/Democratic Mistakes
One of the biggest mistakes that I think that Obama has made so far in his presidency, is the failure to have nationwide prime time addresses to the people and too few press conferences. Instead the White House has decided to substitute town hall meetings throughout the country.
I don't think these have been nearly as effective, plus there is no reason you could not combine the two approaches. I am a big believer in visual aids and the president has failed miserably to use them to his advantage. His first major mistake was with the Recovery Act. He should have gone on television right next to a big pie chart showing where all the money in the bill would go. How many people know/knew that one-third of the bill went for tax cuts? Instead, for months we heard charges that Obama was raising taxes. How many people knew that a similar sized chunk of the act was for extending unemployment benefits and reducing COBRA payments? Instead all we heard was how the bill was filled with pork projects. Similarly, the President should have had a speech to the nation where he laid out the major provisions of a health care bill and how it would affect people. Time and time again, the Republicans have seized the message, put it in their own terms and dominated the media, often with lies, and the Democrats have done little. When The Democrats have reacted it has been defensively. Here's some examples of how the Democrats could have fought back: Every year 15 times as many people will die because of lack of health care insurance as died on 9/11. Why don't you value the lives of uninsured Americans? When the Republicans were filibustering the health care bill, the Democrats should have been challenging them, "Why don't you believe in majority rule and democracy?"
Another major mistake by the Democrats was to give up on major issues in order to try and achieve bi-partisan support. By the summer of 2009 it was clear that there was almost no chance of getting Republican cooperation. A single payer system was never presented by the Democratic leadership as an option for health care. You always negotiate down and by starting lower, they guaranteed that the final bill would be very watered down. Also, it turned out to be a mish-mash of complicated provisions. Even tea party goers favor Medicare 2 to 1. The easy and simple approach should have been to say that Medicare will be extended, as an option, to anyone who chooses to join, with the understanding that the Medicare program will charge enrollees under 65 a premium rate that will recover costs. The system is in place, it's simple, you don't need an insurance exchange, government regulations on private insurance, or anything else. If a private insurance company messes with you, you can just go and join Medicare. This would be the best check on private insurance rates/premiums and unfair practices. Just because of its lower administrative costs, Medicare plans should be able to undercut private insurance by about 20%. Private insurance can compete by reducing executive perks and offering plans that provide extra or special coverage.
Next, the tea party and a lot of fo0lishness about the economy and government.
Health Care
When someone brings up the health care bill for criticism, you might want to point out the following facts. In 1974 President Nixon proposed to Congress that they create a health care bill which would require all employers, no exceptions, to provide their employees with health care. The government would then provide health care for those who were not employed. The current health care bill exempts small businesses with less than 50 employees from having to provide health care and provides tax breaks for those small businesses that do provide it. The Nixon proposal was more radical, more anti-business than the current bill. In 1993 a conservative economist came up with the idea of mandating people to buy health care insurance as an alternative to the Clinton health care bill. This was incorporated into a proposed bill introduced by 21 Republican senators and one Republican congressman. The idea of an insurance exchange was first devised by an analyst at the Heritage Foundation in 2006 and then incorporated into the health care plan of Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The Heritage Foundation is a very right wing think tank. Thus, all the major provisions of the health care bill are Republican ideas. So, when Newt Gingrich calls it a radical social experiment, he is lying. Because he has a Phd. in history, he can't claim ignorance. When people call it socialism or taking over health care, they are just plain wrong. FYI, Germany first adopted a national health care system in the 1880's under those radical reformers, Otto von Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Even with the new bill, we will have the most unregulated system and the least coverage of our citizens of any industrialized country in the world. Remember when Rush Limbaugh said he was moving to Costa Rica if the bill passed? They have a much more socialized system than we do; it is very similar to a medicare for all option.
Amazing as all the past lying about the bill was, it continues even after passage. The St. Petersburg Times called the charge of death panels the biggest lie of 2009. At one tea party rally a speaker compared the health care bill to genocide. Does anyone remember what Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S. Carolina) was talking about when he yelled out "You lie!" to President Obama? President Obama had just said that any bill he signed would not cover illegal aliens. So, who lied, Wilson or Obama? All these lies get thrown out there and the lies and liars get overlooked or forgotten because they are followed by more and more lies that grab the headlines. The latest big lie is that the bill will have the IRS hire 16,000 agents to enforce the requirement to have health insurance. First, the bill specifically states that if someone does not buy insurance and does not pay the fine that is assessed for that, there are no criminal penalties nor can the IRS put a lien against any property of the taxpayer. Thus, there is no real enforcement of the mandate. Secondly, the IRS currently has about 17,000 auditors/enforcement agents for all the taxpayers in the US. There are currently 47 million uninsured, and 32 million are covered by the bill (illegal immigrants make up most of the rest). Previous studies have found that 80% of the uninsured are working poor, and they will get subsidies or Medicaid coverage under the bill. Thus, if everybody else defies the mandate, you will have, at most, 7 million taxpayers who will be fined. So, according to the big lie, we will double the number of IRS agents for a maximum subset of 7 million people who can't be really punished anyway.
Obama/Democratic Mistakes
One of the biggest mistakes that I think that Obama has made so far in his presidency, is the failure to have nationwide prime time addresses to the people and too few press conferences. Instead the White House has decided to substitute town hall meetings throughout the country.
I don't think these have been nearly as effective, plus there is no reason you could not combine the two approaches. I am a big believer in visual aids and the president has failed miserably to use them to his advantage. His first major mistake was with the Recovery Act. He should have gone on television right next to a big pie chart showing where all the money in the bill would go. How many people know/knew that one-third of the bill went for tax cuts? Instead, for months we heard charges that Obama was raising taxes. How many people knew that a similar sized chunk of the act was for extending unemployment benefits and reducing COBRA payments? Instead all we heard was how the bill was filled with pork projects. Similarly, the President should have had a speech to the nation where he laid out the major provisions of a health care bill and how it would affect people. Time and time again, the Republicans have seized the message, put it in their own terms and dominated the media, often with lies, and the Democrats have done little. When The Democrats have reacted it has been defensively. Here's some examples of how the Democrats could have fought back: Every year 15 times as many people will die because of lack of health care insurance as died on 9/11. Why don't you value the lives of uninsured Americans? When the Republicans were filibustering the health care bill, the Democrats should have been challenging them, "Why don't you believe in majority rule and democracy?"
Another major mistake by the Democrats was to give up on major issues in order to try and achieve bi-partisan support. By the summer of 2009 it was clear that there was almost no chance of getting Republican cooperation. A single payer system was never presented by the Democratic leadership as an option for health care. You always negotiate down and by starting lower, they guaranteed that the final bill would be very watered down. Also, it turned out to be a mish-mash of complicated provisions. Even tea party goers favor Medicare 2 to 1. The easy and simple approach should have been to say that Medicare will be extended, as an option, to anyone who chooses to join, with the understanding that the Medicare program will charge enrollees under 65 a premium rate that will recover costs. The system is in place, it's simple, you don't need an insurance exchange, government regulations on private insurance, or anything else. If a private insurance company messes with you, you can just go and join Medicare. This would be the best check on private insurance rates/premiums and unfair practices. Just because of its lower administrative costs, Medicare plans should be able to undercut private insurance by about 20%. Private insurance can compete by reducing executive perks and offering plans that provide extra or special coverage.
Next, the tea party and a lot of fo0lishness about the economy and government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)