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.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, September 27, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, September 24, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A series of singular events
23 September 2010 – The last question I have been contemplating is “what’s next?” To be honest this issue is on my mind a lot. I could make this entry short by stating, “No decision yet” and leaving it there. Despite no clear image of what to do next, there are a variety of related issues to cover. The choice has to feel right – the Tour of Water Balloons always felt so – it’s the country’s loss that no water balloon tossing ever spontaneously arose. At lunch the other day, Geoff offered the idea of an annual ride with more emphasis on getting the word out, and giving the country another chance. I have thought about this, but can’t say that it’s going to happen with me as the prime mover. With just one long distance backpacking trip (across Oregon with my brother Rick), one wandering trip around the country in a converted school bus (with another couple from Connecticut south, then through the Midwest, and eventually ending up in Florida), and one Tour of Water Balloons, my history does not suggest of encourage a repeat performance. I am left with two thoughts. First, these previous events each had a spontaneous component to them (either the initial thought or commitment), followed much later by the serious planning. No such spontaneity is self evident at this point. Second, while thinking about thinking about what to do next, I was struck by how segmented my life can be, and how some segments are more conducive to thinking (about anything) than others. I can’t think about anything if the TV is on. Either I am watching “news” which is highly segmented and attention demanding programming, or I am watching a movie – the good ones engaging both my thoughts and my emotions and the bad ones putting me promptly to sleep. If I am on my 10-mile ride in the morning, I can think for about 35 of the 55 minutes (the first ten minutes, and a minute here and there are too hazardous). For me the best time for thinking is the half or whole hour I put aside to smoke a cigar outside in the evening. This is what I did tonight, but nothing came of it. So right now here I sit. I do know I am going to keep this blog going, but I will probably turn my attention away from cycling and water balloons to those other topics that interest me, all of which might be put in the single bag labeled “Things to consider to improve our country” although I smell and hear a bit of pretention in those words. Read on or don’t read on, or as I like to say, “Do what you want, you will anyway.”
Thought for the day: Foolish hobgoblins are the constancy of little minds.
Thought for the day: Foolish hobgoblins are the constancy of little minds.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Acts of persistence and commitment -- minor miracles in the modern world
22 September 2010 -- Like yesterday and all the days before that I am still here in my own skin asking if I have changed. My mystical connections are as remote from their original roots as they were before the Tour. I slipped right back into my life here in Tempe. For me it’s a good life in a well-run city. The damn 5-month summers here didn’t change either (one consolation is the dry underarms). Yet I think I have changed in two ways. The first change started way back when I mentioned the Tour to some friends and associates at the Lab. Their questions basically pushed me (in a put up or shut up kind of way) to start down the path to the Tour. I picked up that dilapidated Schwinn stationary bike, bought the real Trek 1.2 bike, set a date, and then actually started exercising. This process involved keeping at it, listening to what my body was telling my mind WRT what it wanted to do exercise-wise. Over the ensuing 13 months I lost 25 or so pounds, began feeling marginal better and more fit (the Tour was never about the bike or exercise for me), and now find I have a place in my life for making the 10.1 mile circuit around Tempe – mostly every day. That’s a change. The second change is in my mind’s eye. As readers know, I had a certain vision of the Tour before I had ever seen (from a bicycling perspective) the roads of the Midwest. In my mind’s eye there was a certain sense of how things would go with Dad as companion, and how each day – after the riding – would go. I imagined so much more interaction with folks than actually occurred. The reality of the Tour impressed on me a permanent change in how much I trust my mind’s eye as a veridical model of the world to come. Reality rubs down all the sharp edges on a crisp mind’s eye view of it. I can accept that without too much sadness, regret, or sense of loss because I also changed my view of my own resilience and persistence – these now being stronger than before, but not to say that I claim great levels of either. I am just a guy getting along in the world, I seem to be like a lot of other guys, and I don’t need help I haven’t requested (on this point I note that Dad got a little testy with me because I was engaging in behaviors intended to help him walk less – and he didn’t want any help, saying “I have to walk as much as I can as long as I can.” It occurs to me, at this particular stage in our national story, a lot more of us could do with more of this viewpoint).
“Is that the sum total of the changes that occurred?” I hear you ask. Well, no. My forearms, calves, and thighs are fitter than they have been in a long time. My internet activities in social networking and video documentation now exist and are more extensive (I’m writing this blog, aren’t I). My appreciation for the vast agricultural regions of the Midwest is much improved. My sense of appreciation for quirky aspects of life (like the little Dorena-Hickman ferry) is enhanced. The longer I sit here the more such changes I could enumerate, but the longer I sit here the less I am out there. One has to strike a balance and I am satisfied that this entry captures the essence of what I have to say. Tomorrow I will speculate on what’s next.
Thought for the day: Accept change as the clay added to a model created by a sculptor – each change accepted in pursuit of the essence of the end goal.
To JKSFAM: You go dude(tte).
“Is that the sum total of the changes that occurred?” I hear you ask. Well, no. My forearms, calves, and thighs are fitter than they have been in a long time. My internet activities in social networking and video documentation now exist and are more extensive (I’m writing this blog, aren’t I). My appreciation for the vast agricultural regions of the Midwest is much improved. My sense of appreciation for quirky aspects of life (like the little Dorena-Hickman ferry) is enhanced. The longer I sit here the more such changes I could enumerate, but the longer I sit here the less I am out there. One has to strike a balance and I am satisfied that this entry captures the essence of what I have to say. Tomorrow I will speculate on what’s next.
Thought for the day: Accept change as the clay added to a model created by a sculptor – each change accepted in pursuit of the essence of the end goal.
To JKSFAM: You go dude(tte).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)