Princess River with Two Forks

First Native American woman poised to become U.S. Senator. This news is just in. With a distinguished record as academic and consumer advocate, as well as being the president’s confidant and a liberal stalwart, this person has also achieved the impossible: Despite a background among the well-healed, well-educated and well-spoken, this white woman has made the transition to being a Native American. Still to be determined are her tribal status and share of reparations, gambling proceeds, and Native American name. Liberal, democrat pundits have no problem with application of Native American status to this individual because she did what she had to for the greater good. Conservative, republican pundits are struggling with how to refer to her now that her Native American status has been revealed (She did not want her status to be corruptly used to insure her election in this state that routinely supports affirmative action and massive government – preferring the honorable approach of being elected on her merits – and is currently considering legal action against the person who revealed her status). Most republicans favor referring to her by a name forwarded by an anonymous blogger who writes on Native American issues: Princess River with Two Forks.

The Greater Good?

I have coffee with a friend about once a week. He and I have distinctly different views of government. Last week he said, “In a modern, complex society I am willing to give up some individual liberty for the sake of the greater good.” This was said specifically in defense of the healthcare law under review by the Supreme Court, but I think I am being fair when I say he would invoke this premise to justify many of the nobly intentioned programs of the federal government. His statement sent me into a rant (whose uncontrolled and not very principled nature I won’t try to recreate here). Still that rant revealed to me a principle that I describe now. First, think about the premise of his statement: In a modern society the greater good can only be served at the expense of individual liberty. I reject this premise as false and challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. If the premise is false, then what is the justification for “greater-good” arguments in the case of public policy? At a minimum at the federal level, I believe they should rest on: (a) the constitutional authority to act, (b) an open and truthful costs/benefits analyses, (c) overall affordability, and (d) the consent of the governed. Was the healthcare law subject to such scrutiny? Did the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, not say, “we have to pass this bill in order to see what’s in it.”? In my mind the necessary arguments were not entered into nor were the subsequent justifications adequate. Now imagine that the premise of a statement about serving the greater good were framed this way: In a modern society the greater good can only be served in a manner that increases individual liberty. Also imagine that the Congress tried to write a healthcare law and behaved in accordance with the revised principle. How different the law might be! Certainly the country would not be split in half on the resulting law. Further, I don’t think such a deliberation would have turned into a health insurance law, rather it would have focused on cause of the costs, the rationale for insurance, how to build flexibility and choice into the system, and many other positive efforts to increase the choices of individuals. This might mean that the employer mandate would go away. It might mean that individuals would have to make hard choices about whether or not to have insurance, and what type of insurance to have. A truly dedicated Congress might initiate a national debate on the right to choose the manner of one’s death, and how criminalizing that choice effects health care costs. All sorts of important issues might have been raised and discussed. Instead, we were treated to a President demonizing both insurance companies and opponents who raised concerns about costs. Instead we were treated to the worst possible governance display – passing a monumental bill via budget reconciliation. Time for a change of premises if you ask me.

Fear of death creates democrats

17 April 2011. I don’t vote for republicans or democrats. They are not serious people, but they pretend to be. Both parties conspire to prevent the emergence of third parties. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative but are not: Meager reductions in the deficit are not conservative fiscal policy. Democrats claim to be caring but are not: Heaping debt on the next and following generations is crass and uncaring to the max. However, of the two parties, why would anyone ever vote for democrats? With the current administration the national debt has doubled, the number of men employed has reached its lowest level (as a percent of population) since the depression, and the coming campaign is more of the same. Are you really better off than you were under Bush? How are you doing at the pump and the grocery store? Are you making more or less money? Here’s the bottom line. Money not going to Washington stays local. Being for limited government and low taxes means you must do more for yourself, rather than pay bureaucrats to do it for you. Don’t be afraid. You can do it.
There is a case to be made for the federal government to defend the nation, not police the world. There is a case to be made for the federal government to set standards for reading, mathematics and science achievement, not fund the vested interests of teachers and support failing school systems. There is a case to be made for the federal government to care for the four or five percent of persons incapable of doing so themselves, not pay for every single medical expense for every single person in the country or ensure food on the table for 20 percent of the population. There is a case for a federal ability to respond to national disasters like the hurricane and flood damage in New Orleans or the coming major earthquakes in California, not funding local police and firefighters everywhere on a continuing basis.
Let’s be strong again, not afraid. By the way, there is nothing big government can do to keep you from meeting your maker.

Christian enthusiasm and a society of respect and manners

14 April 2011. Some in my family are evangelical, others are more conventional Christians. I respect their right to be so. I consider my own spiritual and religious beliefs to be a private concern. Yesterday I spoke at my brother Herb’s funeral held at his church. I would describe this church as an enthusiastic version of Christianity. Another of my brother’s, my nephew and a church friend of Herb's also spoke. Our combined thoughts, orally expressed, comprised about 25 minutes of the service. The remaining 30 to 40 minutes was comprised of two songs, one a favorite of my brother, and what I can only say were two sermons by the pastor of the church. In my view these were sermons that used Herb’s passing as a stimulus to strongly and at length profess the pastor's beliefs. Only respect for the fact that it was Herb’s church kept me from leaving. Here’s why.
A funeral is attended by the deceased relatives, friends, and others connected to the deceased person’s life. I think it is safe to say that a variety of faiths are present among the attendees (in fact, as I view faith as a private matter, I would not normally even bring the topic up). Attending such a service places one in a captive setting. All who speak to captive audiences ought to do so with a maximum respect for those who may hold beliefs that are quite different from those of the enthusiastic or evangelical Christian -- because the audience is captive and it is poor manners to deliver messages that they did not come to hear, and that implicitly, sometimes explicitly deny the validity of those beliefs. I do not begrudge or belittle the beliefs of enthusiastic and evangelical Christians. However, if I have placed myself in a setting devoted to the memory of my brother, I do not expect the event to be hijacked for the purpose of expressing enthusiasm for a particular view of Christianity. My brother would not have wanted that either – at the end of his life he was an enthusiastic Christian, but he was not impolite, unmannered, and insensitive to others.

Herb's Eulogy

13 April 2011
Before talking about Herb, I want to address some persons here now.
First, I thank Pastor …… and members of the …. for providing this facility, and thank members of the … who supported Herb – both before his stroke and during his stay at the nursing home. These persons did much to stay connected to Herb, and to connect him to the world. Next, I praise the staff of the home who gave care and service – to Herb and to many others unable to care for themselves – always under trying conditions. They do so with a tenderness and humor, and in a way intended to maintain patient dignity. Brian and Megan deserve warm and special thanks. These two made changes to their own lives in order to help Herb. They did so unselfishly. On Herb’s behalf, I say here I am proud of them. Last, I give honor and love to my father. He visited Herb three times a week while he was at the Pavilions and he tried everything he knew how to make Herb’s life more comfortable there.
My brother, Herb…
People who knew Herb know he had his strengths and weaknesses. He knew this himself – although in public he would deny any claim of his imperfection, all the while flashing his wry and rascally grin. I have much to remember but little to say about Herb’s strengths or weaknesses. All of us have them. They are what it means to be human. Herb was no different.
Here is a fact I know was important to Herb – because we talked about it once or twice a week from the time of his divorce until two days before the stroke that killed him. He loved each of his children. B, A, J, M, M and W, your father loved you. In life and in death, in contact or estranged, in pride or disappointment, in anger or joy, he loved you. Now, I hope each of you forgives him for any and all his faults however important they once may have seemed. I hope you will simply love him. I do.
Herb was fulfilled by working with his hands and mind. He could be a mad frenetic worker. When construction did not provide enough income, he had the courage to change professions. As his heart problem and later his kidney failure took from him the ability to do sustained work, he persevered. He adjusted, worked part-time, and kept on. Confined to a bed at the home, it was easy to see how restless he was. Yet he persevered as long as he could. I am happy he is at rest.
In my earlier visits with Herb at the home, he was more articulate. Speaking was quite difficult, yet from time to time he expressed some amazing things. He told me he was in love again. And I could see in his eyes that it was true. I remember – word for word – the last complete thought he said to me, uttered with that wry and rascally grin on his face, with that sparkle of truth in his eyes.
He said “I have been… no, I am enlightened.”
Wouldn’t we all be pleased if we could say that at the end of our own life?

A rare day

6 April 2011. Today is a rare desert day -- sky overcast and rain coming down, not as in thunderstorms rather in that way with a lot of space between drops. I enjoy going in and outside all day. Kelly gives me a haircut. I return home and as I sit watching the news my cousin calls from Florida to ask advice on a family matter. As I finish the sentence “I think you should do what you think is best for you”, the phone signals I have another call. I switch over and it’s Dad who says “Herb died today” and I say “I will call you right back, Leroy is on the other line”. “OK” I switch back and give Leroy the news and tell him I have to go, but before we say goodbye the phone signals again and I just say “Gotta go” and switch over. Herb’s son Brian says “Dad died today.” I say I know and we make arrangements to talk about plans later. I am back in this beautiful desert day. My brother would have loved it.

Bad policy invariably creates bad outcomes

5 April 2011. I am not rich – just say my earnings put in the lowest third of the upper middle class. You might think I’d jump on the democrat’s “tax the rich” solution to our country’s debt and deficit problems (Yeah get those bad rich people!). Alas, I read an array of economic texts, am a statistician by trade, and can spot specious arguments when I see them (read some of Huey Long’s speeches on taxing the rich – they are word for word paraphrases of Obama’s and other big government types rants against the rich, except that Huey wrote his speeches 70 years ago. Talk about failed policies of the past.). There are at least two flaws with this scheme.
First, consider the word “fair” in the jingle “the rich should pay their fair share”. Simply put they pay more than their fair share already. Take me for example. the federal taxes that I pay are enough to support a family of four for a year. Those who make more than me pay taxes that support many more such families. If my family of three supports a family of four then what does that family of four support? Government statistics indicate that half of income earners effectively pay no federal income taxes. What’s fair about half of potential tax payers not paying? It beats me.
Second, a lot of b…s… is being thrown around using tax takings as investments in America’s future. I have nothing against the persons who serve in government – I don’t think of them as evil. However, I do not think of them as the best people to be making investments either. If I want to invest, I want to entrust my money to people who have a track record of successful investment. We can’t afford to keep “investing” in education (double the spending in the last 30 years, no gains in student achievement), in poverty reduction (trillions spent, millions still crying for more), or alternative energies (How much farm and pasture land will it take to power America with solar panels – too much). No I don’t want these people to invest another dollar on my behalf with these types of outcomes. Economists generally agree that, performing optimally, government only mildly distorts capital investment efficiency (the cause of the growth of jobs) and, not performing optimally, markedly worsens capital investment efficiency, economic growth and job creation. Decide for yourself how our government is performing. I already have, and my conclusion is government has to be much, much, much smaller to start undoing 50 years of really bad policies.
You don’t think things are going to get worse if we don’t change course? Consider the following data point. In the 1990’s I went to Spain and had the opportunity to speak to many Spanish people. I learned most of the best and brightest university students were pursuing paths leading to government positions. Do we need most of the best and brightest to go into government? Perhaps, but look what’s happened to Spain in the past 20 years. It’s not an economically bright picture.

Bad policies sort of work until they don't. Then all the news is bad all of the time.

Shifting gears but not principles

2 April 2011. After reaching a point of relative financial security, i.e., secure against all but an Armageddon created by hyperinflation and collapse of the currency , I have difficulty understanding the drive to make more and more money. Here’s a homey point about how little value money has relative to actual life experience.
Every morning from the beginning of December until the end of April, I have a cup of coffee and a large glass of orange juice while I read the Wall Street Journal – on my patio if weather permits. Once in a while, if home-made cookies are available, I will eat a couple of them or have a piece of raisin toast or an English muffin. This takes about an hour of my waking day. It’s the orange juice I want to describe here, and it is actually a 1 to 4 combination of grapefruit and orange juice. It is simply the best juice I ever drank any place in the world, including at four and five star hotels, in Arizona and Florida orange groves, and in Mexico and Spain where I drank fresh squeezed juice. What makes this juice so special? I believe it is my relation to my one grapefruit and three orange trees and the fruit they produce. All year round I make sure the trees have enough water. During the summer this means flood irrigating them about once a week. Occasionally, I call the nursery and have them prune and inspect the trees. I also treat them with iron once or twice a year. During harvest season, once or twice a week I pick enough fruit to squeeze a gallon of juice which my son and I drink it up. When I say squeeze I mean squeeze by hand. All of these activities imbue the juice with the quality that makes it the best in the world. I am connected to the juice by my efforts to make sure it exists. No amount of money will do the same thing because money is simply a medium for representing value, not the representation of lived positive experience.
When I travel and drink juices there, or from May through November when I am reduced to buying very expensive fresh juice as a replacement. I experience juice with a more disconnected quality. It’s ironic to me that this morning experience also ties me to the small plot of urban land I own in the middle of this hot desert. I wish I liked apple juice more than orange juice because then I could move back where the apple trees grow, the seasons are as I grew up, and I could sit outside on summer evenings. Oh the choices we make.

20% and no more with a suggestion how to achieve the impossible

29 Mar 2011. I keep arguing -- to no avail -- with my liberal friends about taxes and spending. None have changed their views nor am I innocent, for neither had I to this point. Something is amiss. Being fiscally conservative, for smaller government and less authoritarian oversight I am going to change my mind before them (to show who are really the inflexible ones). So I accept that we should assure care for the needy. We should provide for the national defense. We should assure the highest quality education (here however I can’t resist making the point that since the 1070’s doubling of real dollar expenditures on education has had no effect on student achievement. Here we can halve expenditures without affecting outcomes. Why not?) We should ensure that health care is affordable. We should ensure that the United States has the highest levels of individual freedom in the world. Ditto for private enterprise. No one should go hungry. Everyone should have adequate (not audacious or lavish) shelter . As the fiscally conservative person I am I merely say that local, state and federal governments do this without taking more than 20% of gross domestic product. This is a lot of money and it grows as the economy grows.
How is this to be achieved. It’s really simple. Make those in government who want to do more find a way to do it. That is, make it part of their job expectations to become more efficient, delivering better and more services for lower and lower costs (so more different things can be done). This means those who spend the money not only have an incentive to reduce fraud waste and abuse (the usual boogey men) but also have an incentive to finding better and cheaper ways of doing what they are doing. In other words, government has to be ruthlessly efficient, thoroughly modern, willing to change, open to new ideas, honest. One way to make these incentives real is to tie pay to a percentage of the savings that efficiency, speed, and simplicity that the changes introduce into the system. I think government workers are like all people; they want to be secure, well-off, not harm others. Providing them a means of increasing their pay will work wonders. Further, if the pay raises of individuals are linked to the savings they are personally responsible for creating, then you will really see hustle. In fact, some individuals could become exceedingly rich in government service (save a billion get a $100,000 raise, and provide $999,900,000 to apply to other programs). There is a downside I have to mention. A lot of people who aren’t interested in finding faster and cheaper methods of doing things is going to get pretty envious of someone who is. Further, applying this method to local and state governments is going to create a lot of problems for the public service union leadership. That’s okay. Everyone needs a problem or two to work on. It makes life interesting.

So you think you're poor

28 Mar 2011. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning about the uncertainty involved in measuring happiness in the populations of nations. Two interesting points emerge in the article. First, because of the relative stability of self-expressions of happiness by respondents, regardless of economic conditions, government representatives are exploring alternate definitions of happiness, principally economic indicators like income. Second, alternate measures are deemed desirable because they can be related to government actions. I would urge caution before we go down this path for the following reasons. Almost uniformly income and other economic indicators are measured relatively. For example, poverty is defined as some point below the median income. The problem is relative measures can never recognize when poverty as an absolute concept is eliminated – some percentage of the population will always have the lowest income, hence be poor, and become subject to the do-good/equality of outcome crowd. I say this is wrong and fuzzy thinking. Caring for the welfare of all as I do, and in order to distinguish actual poverty from relative poverty I offer the following guidelines. First, if you can afford a home or apartment with heat, electricity, running hot and cold water, and a bathroom, your housing circumstances make you ineligible to claim poverty. Next, if you can put nourishing food on your table (gourmet and gourmands aside) you have no claim to poverty here. Further, If public primary and secondary education opportunities are within biking or busing distance, your children’s educational opportunities do allow you to claim poverty. Finally, if you can afford cable or satellite television services and an internet connection, your cultural opportunities make you ineligible to claim poverty. Truly meet four criteria and you are eligible to claim poverty. Meet two or three of four and you are on the border line, some form of support may be necessary. Meet only one of the four and means testing is definitely in order. If you are ineligible on all four, you are or should be on your own. Using absolute unchanging criteria place limits on government mandated interventions that relative criteria do not. If you think you have it bad here in the United States, first watch the documentary Waste Land, then tell what prevents you from improving your own situation. As the song goes “Don’t worry. Be happy.”

Doing good, equality and individual freedom

27 Mar 2011. It turns out that 3 February 1913 was a poor day for individual freedom. In the name of doing good and achieving equality, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified. How are we doing? In the ensuing 90-odd years we have created the most efficient and lucrative tax taking system the world has ever seen. The amount of cash available to governments was, is, will be breathtaking. What’s the government’s record on improving quality of life? In my opinion, it’s not good. Have we eliminated poverty or created a permanently entitled underclass? After many trillion dollars of expenditures to eliminate poverty I would say the picture is dimmer now than when individuals were primarily responsible for sheltering, feeding, clothing and caring for themselves. There is a distinction between caring for those who cannot care for themselves and arbitrarily defining the downtrodden via an income level and then bestowing all manner of benefits on them. Has the government affected health care in a positive way? I think not. The imposition of the employer health insurance mandate during the World War II brought the first of many distortions to the market of health care. While no one wants the sick, injured and dying to go without care, yet in the name of this good we have created a most coercive scheme of tax takings and restriction of individual freedom. When government says you must buy insurance, not buying it becomes a crime. Never in our country’s history has not doing something with your own earnings been a crime. Welcome to the land of equality -- everybody forced to accept the same outcome independent of individual effort.

In some ways we are all badgers now

24 March 2011. My thoughts are these. On style I note a deceit of having two people who are for unions discussing the effects of unions. Though the writer claims to have been anti-union, the ensuing discussion is one-sided, disguising persuasion as objectivity. On issues of public sector unions, my thoughts are more complex.
I am for unions and right-to-work laws. I do not condone that a simple majority of workers joining together in a union – whatever the workplace – may compel all workers to be members, pay dues, and adhere to union directives. I put my individual rights (and hence the rights of other individuals) above the rights of groups – however constituted. Unions should compete with other workplace options for my loyalty. I note here that a badger is a solitary animal not a herd animal.
In the private sector, I see declining union membership sector as due to an unintended consequence of laws that regulate workplace safety and rights, child labor, and minimum wages – and not to the efforts of greedy capitalists. Many of the issues that gave rise to unions no longer exist. Further, “capitalists” (those who build companies and hire labor) have learned that labor is a resource/tool set essential to long-term success of their enterprise: A satisfied workforce is absent less, engages in less sabotage and work stoppage, and understands that the quality of the goods and services of a firm are essential to the long-term health of the company and their job. Right-thinking capitalists do what they can to insure they have a stable satisfied work force. Having learned this lesson and taken steps consonant with its implications, over the past few generations capitalists have decreased the need of unions.
Public sector unions are another matter. There are a variety of reasons why I see them differently. Taxes are the source of funds to pay worker salaries and benefits. Since I view taxes as takings from citizens, these should be minimized, their expenditure should be scrutinized with the most stringent and skeptical eye, and be free of corruption. None of these conditions hold at present in any government with which I am familiar. The most cited example of corruption is the circle of support: union dues –> Democrats’ campaign funds –> elected democrats increasing worker pay and benefits. The most egregious aspect of this circle is that a public sector worker with strong conservative values who seeks limited government must watch as union leaders send money to politicians who espouse views totally contrary to his beliefs. The herd tramples the badger here. If honest accounting accompanied proposals to fund increases in pay and benefits and if expenditures were required to be fully funded at all times (two actions that would bring unfunded liabilities under control and force the future tax increases into the present), I would be willing to trust the electorate to discriminate among the persons vying for office. Unfortunately, our elected officials seem incapable of enacting either of these honest actions. Short of making programs actuarially sound from the moment of initiation, a careful and skeptical scrutiny of expenditures might serve the same purpose. Both Republicans and Democrats resist this type of scrutiny. So we are left with a large pool of individuals who derive their income from the tax pool and who return a fraction back into the tax pool: Such individuals are not affected by tax increases as long as they can negotiate en masse for higher wages and benefits. They are in fact, not net taxpayers, but rather net tax receivers. Now, I am willing to say that teachers, firefighters, police and government workers are doing useful and honest work for which they should receive just compensation, yet among these groups there are no competing forces to increase productivity, lessen costs, and reduce featherbedding. In fact, the forces are aligned in the opposite direction. This has to change. Since the 1970’s education expenditures have more than doubled in inflation-adjusted constant dollars – to what effect. A well-run company that received a doubling of capital investment would generally present a much different performance profile. So let there be unions, but let me choose whether I want to belong.
As you know from past writings, I am disgusted by the amount of tax takings in this country. Further, I am disgusted by the notion that the “rich” must pay their fair share, in which the definition of “fair share” is simply more. At times I am tempted to respond in kind, by saying that net tax users (as opposed to payers) should not be eligible to vote on tax increases. To date, I have managed to maintain a relative state of personal calm and usually vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate who is not a Republican or Democrat. Systems usually work until they stop.

Gadafi games

15 March 2011. I am no fan of henchmen like Gadafi and his sons as I prefer representative forms of government providing the strongest protections for minorities to brutal selfish autocracies. Assuming the Libyan rebels seek greater freedom and representation in their own governance, the question is “what is the most effective course of U.S. actions there?” Unlike Afghanistan, where U.S. policy makers justified war by transforming the terrorist threat of al Qaida (operating in Afghanistan) into a national threat (the governing Taliban were responsible), two different segments of the Libyan population (one bad, one not well understood) are in conflict, and the bad segment is rapidly getting the upper hand. Further, although our government’s record is not perfect (Darfur, Saudi Arabia, Tibet, etc.), the general tendency of American foreign policy is to do the right thing (Haiti, tsunami responses). Americans like to see action on problems. Unfortunately, events in Libya appear to be moving too fast for our bloated government to make a military response (military responses take planning and preparation in order to succeed, and I believe the rapid deployment force is occupied elsewhere). So, what is an effective course of action at this point? Here’s my suggestion. By the end of today, we should recognize the sovereignty of the rebel government over all of Libya (those areas currently controlled by Gadafi would be labeled “disputed territory “). Next, by end of day tomorrow we should have a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Finally, the President should announce publicly that any further military action by Gadafi military against the Benghazi government would be treated as an act of war requiring our swiftest possible military response. It’s the game of chicken that we have played with Gadafi before. He backed down then, and he will back down now because he knows what it means to have his tent rattled. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think there is a single autocrat in the Middle East that wants to step over a line drawn in the sand by the President of the United States.

Chaos and voting behavior

13 Mar 2011. Today, as I drank my coffee and home-grown orange juice and smoked a cigar, I watched the news on Fox, read the Sunday paper and checked out news and blogs on Real Clear Politics. I do it daily. Today is typical – consensus is that the world is a mess and someone ought to do something. The urge to do something is a part of human nature (Here I sit writing about it). What emerges in my mind as I write this is the notion that urge to do something needs to be tempered with some calm reasoning (Although I disagree with Obama’s political perspective, I find his willingness to reflect on issues a very positive trait). Calm reasoning requires that benefits, costs, and consequences of actions be examined with honesty and without passion. Among the costs and consequences of any political action are its effects on future generations. One reason I believe the deficit/debt issue has become so intense is that a majority of citizens now realize how onerously previous and current choices affect their own children and grandchildren – a once abstract concept has reached the stage where the consequences are real for those in our immediate families. Usually people are not energized by special taxes on other minorities (for example, expressed with humor, luxury taxes hit the evil rich, cigarette taxes punish stupid smokers, and fast food taxes will soon punish those with unhealthy life styles). Now that irresponsibly designed and funded programs like Social Security, Medicare (all parts, but especially part D) and Obama Care are going to make paupers of their own children and grandchildren, more people are willing to examine the dishonest aspects of these programs. That is, debate about these programs is starting to become more honest and dispassionate. That’s good. Being on the cusp of the wave of boomers, I am in the most advantaged position with respect to these programs. So much so that I feel guilt and think about what I would be willing to give up in order to help make a higher quality of life possible for future generations in perpetuity (not just the 75 years currently being thrown about in talking points about Social Security). Actuaries and insurance companies are really good at determining the balance between current inflows of funding against the outflow of future benefits. I have argued in other venues that each new program should be required to be revenue neutral in the sense that it not depend upon future tax raises in order to fund future expenditures. For example, Social Security fails this test because in order to meet future obligations at current benefit levels, taxes must be raised. All other fixes reduce benefits in some fashion either by increasing the number of working years or eliminating some from eligibility (those evil rich again 8-) ). A dispassionate and honest analysis at each point of past modification and extension of the Social Security system would have revealed this. Among our national politicians, here and there we are beginning to hear some dispassionate and honest assessments of the way forward. So here’s what I urge (after all I am a member of the human race and suffer from the same trait of thinking something must be done) : in the next election, disregard party affiliation, consider every candidate running for each office, and listen carefully for honest and dispassionate appraisals of the issues – that’s the person to vote for. That person might be from a Green or Libertarian or Tea party, or an independent candidate. If the candidate just keeps repeating talking points, you can be sure they are taking big money from the Democratic or Republican national organizations, or affiliated organizations. Talking points and taking big money don’t eliminate candidates, but it sure is an indication that they are not thinking about needed changes in a serious way.

Dialog in a civil society

Yesterday, I took a chance by going to the Paradise Grill to have lunch with the old lunch group, then started in on my favorite topics, and provoked responses (I should have expected) by one of them. During the exchange I became angry and had to leave. All day today I have been thinking about that exchange, and my thoughts suggest that I have to control my anger and the accompanying impulsive, emotional responses, but further, I am a little depressed about what the interaction augurs for dialog among more general audiences. If two well-off, college-educated, adult men discussing taxes, business, and the role of government cannot avoid shouting and name calling, how will larger and more heterogeneous groups with much larger stakes in the game behave when discussing them? For me, for now I have settled on a number of small steps that I can personally take. For the most part, I will seek conversations with persons outside the lunch group. I intend to express my more pointed views on taxes and governance in written form –probably this blog – and hope that these views find their way into the broader society and find persons who are open to my perspective. The themes which capture my perspective are these: (1) control by others over one’s own life should be minimal, no more than absolutely necessary and only with one’s consent, (2)judging on an absolute basis, everyone in our country is pretty well off, (3) if there must be taxes, then all must pay something, (4) the rich are not evil simply because they are rich, nor the poor good just because they are poor, (5) it is work that is noble, not the line of work, (6) sharing is a good deed when it is voluntary not when it is compulsory (those who compel are simply thieves who use desirable outcomes to mask immoral means). So, as of today I am going to try and say something here at waterballooner’s on a regular basis.

An Independent view - 2

Sometimes election outcomes are exquisite. This time voters resuscitated republicans and slapped democrats on the side of the head – needed actions I'd say – putting professional politicians on notice. Nearly perfect! (If only a viable, organized, third party had emerged, but alas no.) Because both parties are not yet honorable, I don’t believe much of what their principals or media reps have to say. At the federal level, I view the vortex of fiscal (taxes, budgets, debt)—policy (government overreach) – and vision (individual liberty vs. state-mandated “freedom” and “equality”, aka “fairness”) as the central problem of our time. Just what did the 2010 voting do? You have to step back and look at the big picture.
Don’t waste time considering whether tea and republican parties get along, or whether conservatives and moderates survive as democrats. These are distractions used to fill television time and print space. Resolution will come with time. Rather consider this. Federal government is stalled for a couple of years. There will be a lot of flailing by participants practicing their posturing, but not much will occur in this vortex. Actions will occur on the periphery and the central paralysis will have its greatest impact in the states, particularly California and New York and states similarly comprised.
In CA and NY voters achieved a sublime accomplishment at precisely the right time. They left in charge the principals who created the highly unstable budgetary situations existing therein. It’s perfect karma. In California and NY, voters stuck with what got us here (perhaps the democrats successfully demonized opponents.) Perfect. Now democrats are responsible for cleaning up the messes they have created – as it should be. If I were a republican strategist in these two states, I’d leave state governance to the democrats until the state fiscal problems were solved. I’d concentrate on city, town, village and county politics and build the grass roots in the stinking manure spread everywhere by hapless state machines. If republicans (or a third party) act honorably at the local level, in a couple of generations, there would not be a democrat left in these states.
Voters elsewhere have said to residents of CA and NY, go for it, but don’t come to us for help, because we chose a different path. This week Arnold called an emergency session because the CA budget crisis is worse than anticipated. I’d bet the actual figure is worse than the stated $25B. In CA and NY states we’ll see what democratic control delivers to “fix” the problems. These are two experiments that I will watch with almost morbid fascination. High income families are already leaving, taking incomes with them, so higher taxation will only increase the flight. Here’s a solution progressives in CA might consider – a state takeover of the entertainment industry – it’s a big cash cow and those actors make way too much money. NY could do a similar thing to the financial industry. That’s a joke. I reject state control of any business but my cynicism has reached a level at which it would not surprise me to see these fanciful actions seriously considered.

An Independent's View

Because democrats and republicans are sure to impose their story line on the election results, I hope some of them will read this, and spread the word. Neither party appeals to me. Parties are legal conspiracies to gain electoral and regulatory power. That democrats and republicans have locked up election processes in every state is a sign of how far we are from free and open elections – it’s a lot easier to win elections and gain power if you only have one opponent. That’s why I vote for third parties and will keep doing so until there are viable alternatives to democrats and republicans.
I am hopeful about the tea party movement (TPM) – I see it as an organic, self-organizing, response of the people to current political choices: I too favor free markets, low taxes, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and constitutional governance. The TPM perspective is about integrity of federal government processes, not specific policies except as they violate the integrity of the process. In a real sense the TPM is apolitical, relative to democrat and republican perspectives. There are so many examples of a lack of integrity in federal processes, it is hard to know what to address first. I think TPM members focused a lot of energy on taxes, overspending, and debt and deficit because their lives are shaped by family income, balancing debt and income, and making hard choices about what to buy – and they know the consequences of bad management of these processes. Deep down I think we all know that our country is on the cusp of an unpleasant future if we do not exercise credible restraint. On this, it is interesting to note that the federal government has some of the toughest accounting standards, as any business that has federal contracts knows. Yet these standards are not imposed on federal budgeting processes. It’s a case of do as I say not as I do. Let’s stop this by adopting commonly accepted accounting practices to all federal programs and federal budgeting processes. This will immediately reveal the true state of our deficit and debt problems. Because the problems that we have created for ourselves have come into being over time, we have to work ourselves out overtime. The incoming Speaker of the House has called for spending to be capped at 2008 levels. This is admirable, but insufficient. The federal budget must be balanced. There are two parts to process. First, federal income has to be capped at a fixed percentage of GDP (20% is a good figure because it permits support for national defense [4-5% of GDP] and popular social programs like social security and Medicare – if these programs are constructed and run properly). Second, spending must be limited to income. Both of these steps have to be instituted via statute or via constitutional amendment to ensure their effectiveness. These steps create the mechanism by which undesirable government programs are defunded and eliminated, and will incentivize efficiency – the only way to increase spending on a program is to find or create savings elsewhere. I have been fortunate in this recession and I am thankful. This good fortune makes me willing to endure too high taxes for a while to help those in need, but not to expand the entitlement state -- there is a difference between helping those in need in hard times and permanent, coerced, transfers of my income to others.
At the same time, I am also angry, and I trace my anger to two aspects of the health insurance reform process. First and foremost, I did not elect a congressional representative to put into law a mandate to buy health insurance. I communicated this to him, but he disregarded me and the will of the district. We just fixed the representative problem in the past election, but it will take years to undo the damage his vote has created, because nearly as odious (as the individual mandate) was the use of reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill. This abuse of legislative process will come back to haunt those who used it so, and I know in my heart the outcomes of such future abuses will not be pleasant. Somehow the legislative branches must preclude all future uses of reconciliation for such purposes. There is a reason the Senate is constructed as it is. Senate processes force deliberative and consensual decision making among the major forces at play in any issue. In the end, Senate processes offer the best protection of the rights of minority interests. Sometimes the minority interests are objectively correct, and their protection is important for the health of the nation.
I consider myself a thoughtful person, and my thoughts run this way. There is a new Congress coming. They have been sent a relatively clear signal. The country wants the Congress to engage in meaningful, fiscally responsible discussions about what to do to put the country right. I personally am able to be patient as long as I see steady progress in the right direction. At a minimum, the Congress, the Senate, and the President should know I will keep my eye on them and make my choices accordingly.

More on being rich

27 September 2010 – I am reading Mad as Hell (MaH) , a book written by an independent (Rasmussen) and a moderate democratic (Schoen) pollster about the emergence of the Tea Party. Today I am going through the first few chapters, wherein they describe and recount the “causes” of the rise of the TP – one of which seems at odds with what I wrote last week about being rich. MaH imparts the impression of a great loss of living standard in the country. If my liberal friends happen on this book they would through all the statistics in my face and demand an explanation as to my claim that we are mostly “rich” in this society. My response is straightforward. To reach a natural end of life an individual needs food and shelter, and perhaps some medical attention (emergency rooms are, by law, open to all) from time to time. I argue: Decent provision of these items is possible on modest incomes. Modest additional expenditure brings a wide variety of cultural and educational opportunities. For me, this is being rich, because an individual has the opportunity to make of herself whatever she wishes. Only when we accept argument (advertisements) that define the good life as acquiring – at substantial cost – some additional material good do we become entangled in endless arguments about what it takes to be rich. If I can obtain and read any book, attend community college, interact with persons the world over, and express my views to the entire world – all at virtually no cost – then I not only have the power to shape my own destiny but also to encourage others to do the same. Having accepted the former premise has led me to reject the notion that I need big government to watch over me, helping me all the time, prescribing what medical coverage I should have, etc, etc. Having rejected these notions, I view the government as most useful in developing consensual standards but not expensive mandates, defending legal rights of individuals, and defense of the nation. I surely don’t need the tax burden imposed in order to support things I don’t need.
Sure, we have gotten ourselves into some expensive traps (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), but having done so only creates the interesting problem of how to transform these traps into important opportunities for change and improving our nation. Solving these problems will involve some costs and sacrifices, but the sooner we start the sooner things will start improving. As a person on the leading edge of the boomer generation, I respectfully submit that we boomers make the most sacrifices.

Thought for the day: A book is like a clutch -- it helps put the mind in gear.

Why the tea party isn't going anywhere anytime soon

26 September 2010 -- George Carlin did an effective routine mocking the “stuff” we accrue, the basic point of which was: We have too much – not just external stuff, but internal stuff too (e.g., fat is just energy stored for future use, yet some of us carry enough for a couple of life times). If we are materially rich by historical standards, and well-off by almost any other standard then why is there malaise, anger, and divisiveness amongst us. I see two sources. First, I sense a loss of spirituality among many of us. Without getting into a rant about professional sports, watching rich men play games has become very important to many of us. Why? Is watching MLB, NFL and NBA more important than contemplating and acting on our first and most important principles? The last great civilization to raise entertainment to mass spectacle did not fare well, and I believe historians generally view the rise of the “games” to be a symptom of the decay of the Roman Empire. In my opinion, consternation about decay in our own society is not a productive activity because it misses the point I believe most important anyway: Change is a consequence of individual actions aggregated across the population as a whole. And on this point, I am optimistic for positive change. Although I do not belong to any tea party group, I previously published newspaper opinion pieces that made many of the same points. Thereafter, I was not aware of any change. However, the failure of this Democratic administration and Congress to listen to people’s concerns, and the subsequent actions that they did take created the environment in which the tea party took root. Now, the tea party movement (which is not a Republican party movement) exists as a decentralized, yet connected and vigilant, force in American politics (It is interesting to note that there are other examples of these relatively spontaneous movements emergence, for example during Tiananmen Square actions and more recently the Green movement in Iran; and there examples of excellent use of the internet to organize party politics in this country in Howard Dean’s and Obama’s runs for the presidential nomination). The tea party is coalesced around some constitutional and governmental principles which have such force with a large proportion of the U.S. citizenry that I predict the tea party movement will be with us for a long time. Whether in morphs into a political party is debatable, but I hope not because political parties are at their base open conspiracies to reward some constituencies and not others. We need some focused on the greater good, which in the end means the good of all, not just those on the winning side of an election. Contemplation, yet not blind acceptance, of first principles (e.g., the golden rule, Buddhist, Christian or Islamic principles, etc) is a basis for choosing actions that are more likely to serve the good of all. The second source is a lack of tolerance for those who differ from us, followed by the implementation of laws, taxes, and authorities to discourage the behaviors and views not tolerated. For example, the criminalization of drug use created vast new populations of “criminals”. Our war on drugs has not stopped the consumption, but it has created hundreds of thousands, if not millions of criminals – all of whom become more alienated from the rest of us because their ability to participate fully in society is curtailed. Another example, the “health” lobby keeps raising taxes on smokers – well beyond the point where they are paying for their medical bills caused by smoking – on rich people (via luxury taxes), the rich (via luxury taxes), and drinkers (using taxes rather than prohibition to attempt to eradicate this wayward behavior). Enough I say. Let’s devise a world view of government for the good of all – one that fosters a tax system in which all citizens contribute revenues to the state, and in which the burden of taxes on each citizen is not onerous. Whoa Bill. Get back to the point here. The point is: Contemplation, not blind acceptance, of first principles will engender tolerance. Tolerance will engender more careful consideration of what is fair, and doing the fair thing will increase the good for all. Clearly, putting burdens on our children and theirs is a long way from doing the fair thing, no matter what high-minded rhetoric you wrap it in. It’s stll a bunch of “stuff” (I’d use another word, but I’m sure you already know that other word).

Thought for the day: I’ll pay my bills, you pay yours. If one of us suffers a catastrophe, we’ll sit down and figure it out.

Aren't most of us rich?

24 September 2010 -- In our home everyone has a room of their own and there are common rooms as well. Our bathrooms are convenient, comfortable environments for sanitation and getting clean. This home was financed via a mortgage wherein we adhered to an older principle (25% of income for home ownership) that enabled us to pay it off a few years early. We have the capability of eating nutritious tasty food every day if we wish. Clothes, books, movies, and music – of any type – are available at a reasonable price without leaving home. Access to the world of news and entertainment is just a few movements away, via methods both convenient and inexpensive. So I have asked myself and others, “In what other age in the history of man, or in what other parts of the world would we not be considered rich?” My own response is, “Very few” and these few are basically those of other modern societies much like our own. I believe an economic analysis of costs would show that the lifestyle described above is attainable for a typical family with a median household income.
So one has to ask, “What factors are creating so much financial stress for typical families”? From personal experience, I offer these candidates: Litigation (having to employ a lawyer always costs more than the value received in return); automobiles (which are one item where technology raises the cost rather than the reverse); insurance of all types (where the insurance companies always take the good side of the bet – that is, they bet you will be healthy, not have an accident, or not die); higher education (where technology also drives up costs); government (where takings have almost [but not quite] always inexorably risen since the introduction of the 16th amendment and the rise of the modern social democratic state); and our own desire for a better life (in which category I place such things as second homes, boats, designer clothes, expensive travel, and an endless variety of other items of luxury ). Here I am not making a value judgment about the items in this paragraph, but rather pointing out that the notion of being rich is relative, and further that by all historical standards almost all people in this country are “rich”. I find my thoughts are centered by considering this perspective from time to time.
To be sure, as those of you who know me know, I have beliefs about lawyers, insurance, government, and the wisdom of pursuing material luxury -- I am sure I will write about these things in good time -- yet to remain “rich” and continue to prosper we must live together and accommodate our differences. In my opinion, accommodation is not well-served by the “pure and righteous” imposing by force and taxation (another form of force) their view on the “wayward and ignorant”. In particular, as a former scientist and applied mathematician, I have a healthy respect for the limits of rational models (like those used in economics, transportation, and the life and social sciences), wherein the error components are substantial, and are all lumped into the term “chance”. Simply stated, a lot of stuff happens by chance, and I prefer it that way.

Thought for the day: It is pretty risky to not take chances.