Never Overlook Progress

Speedway has come a long way in recent years. While it is very easy to point out shortcomings and lament imperfections, I was reading through some old case archives and came across this:

A man was sentenced Wednesday to 85 years in prison for killing and robbing a guest at a motel where he worked.

Joseph Pryor had been convicted of murder and robbery in the October 2005 death of James Santelli in the Super 8 Motel in Speedway.

Police said Pryor, a maintenance worker at the motel, used a wooden coat hanger to stab Santelli, 45, of Palatine, Ill. A wooden coat hanger was found sticking out of Santelli's neck, authorities said.

Pryor admitted to stealing cash and tools from Santelli, a construction worker, police said. Pryor tried to cover the crime by pouring Listerine over evidence and sold the tools to a pawnshop, police said.

I note this particular matter because the civil suit that followed this crime wound up setting a rather important precedent in Indiana law.

May Mr. Santelli rest in peace, and may Mr. Prior find forgiveness some day. However, may Speedway work diligently to ensure that it never again becomes a home to dodgy "hooker hotels" that wind up having these kinds of violent crimes therein.

Random Information, Apropos of Nothing

This is part of Article I of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Not that any of this is relevant to the present moment. Continuing in the irrelevant articles of history, here is a copy of the Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton:

Article I: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. States that contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Article II: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

The highlights in both (other than the Article headings) are mine.

I post this information so that we have primary source evidence as to the nature of the last two impeachments. Personally, I don't think that this country needs another impeachment. However, if/when "The Don" has articles of impeachment brought against him, or if such measures enter the public discussion, we should have a historical backdrop for same. As is perfectly clear, I disagree with President Trump. However, pursuing policy with which I disagree is not an impeachable offense. Further, as I stated time and again during the Obama administration, "unconstitutional" (and "liberalism" for that matter) is not analogous to "stuff I disagree with."

Our Future

I am generally not one to proselytize religion on this blog, as evidenced by the more or less complete absence of religious reference on here. However, I went to church this past Sunday and the minister said something that really hit home with me. I will do my best to paraphrase:

While it has become a popular, feel-good message to state that the children are our future, it simply isn't true. The children are no more our future than are seeds our salad. It is incumbent on us, the adults, to ensure that the children are properly brought up to care for and tend the future. If we fail our own children, the failure of the future belongs to us in greater proportion than does it belong to our children. It is our responsibility to save the seed corn from today's crop, plant that seed corn, tend to it, harvest it, and save a new batch of seed corn.

In other words, when I stop paraphrasing a man who is considerably more eloquent than I, insofar as we adults (and I say "we" to very much encompass myself, at 41 years old) complain about the "kids these days," that complaint should be directed inward, as we have collectively failed to raise the "kids these days" in a way that is satisfactory for us. Insofar as the "good old days" were better than the present days, this is our fault. The world today is what we made out of the world of yesterday. For the mathematically inclined, it can be represented by an equation: [today] = [yesterday] + [our influence].

I suppose the proper question for our public policy, at every level, is twofold: (1) is "our influence" a positive or negative input to the world of yesterday; and (2) are we properly saving, planting, etc., our seed corn and teaching the next generation to do so, or are we eating it with no thought for the future?

Interesting . . .

I read in the "Failing New York Times" an interesting story today. You really should read it yourself. It was authored by a former White House stenographer, whose job it was to keep transcripts of conversations between the President and, well, anyone, to ensure that people accurately quoted what the President of the United States said. A few highlights:

On Friday, at a news conference with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain a reporter asked President Trump about disparaging comments he had made about her to The Sun newspaper. He denied ever having said them and declared that recordings of the interview would vindicate him. “We record when we deal with reporters,” he said. “We solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument.”

Do we?

. . . . . . . 

As White House stenographers, we were among the handful of staff members who remained at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when the administration changed. This was my first transition, but my boss had said every new administration she’d worked in since the 1980s was grateful for our help.

. . . . . . .

We carried a microphone and two recorders at all times, and let them run until the last reporter had left the room, just in case a reporter yelled a question over his shoulder with one foot out the door. Should the press actually misquote the president, we were there, armed with an official transcript of what the president did or did not say.

But now, we were faced with a president who didn’t want to be recorded.  

. . . . . . . 

Mr. Trump likes to call anyone who disagrees with him “fake news.” But if he’s really the victim of so much inaccurate reporting, why is he so averse to having the facts recorded and transcribed?

President Trump did criticize Theresa May to The Sun. We know because it was recorded.

It’s clear that White House stenographers do not serve his administration, but rather his adversary: the truth. 

As a self-righteous jackass who has done more than perhaps one person to put this horse's ass in the White House said a few months ago, "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."  (And that very much includes the infamous "pee tape.")

I guess when you lie every time your lips move . . . . .

Those Pence Brothers . . . They're Just so Nice!

Ugh! I think I need to go punch myself in the face just for writing that headline! Hopefully anyone who has ever read this blog recognizes the sarcasm in the title.

Anyway, this recently came to my attention:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the “front row of the American dream.”

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

Indiana alone has spent at least $21 million on the cleanup thus far, or an average of about $500,000 per site, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press. And the work is nowhere near complete.

Well, I mean, what's $21m when you're a "christian first, conservative second, and Republican third" here in Indiana? It's not like you're some selfish school kid who wants to, you know, eat lunch or something. Million-dollar pollution problem? Great! Poor kids want lunch? Feed 'em to Rokita!

Kiel Bros. has paid for only a fraction of the overall effort.

OK. So here we are, the Pence family business has imposed tens of millions of dollars on us, the taxpayers, and people are still willing to believe in his so-called "fiscal conservatism." I tell you what, next time I'm looking for someone to get my spending under control, I'm not just going to let him (or her) do my spending for me!

In a statement, Pence’s older brother Greg Pence — who was president of Kiel Bros. when it went bankrupt and is now running for Congress as a Republican — distanced himself from the cleanup costs.

“Greg Pence has had nothing to do with Kiel Bros since 2004. This is another attempt by the liberal media to rehash old, baseless attacks,” campaign spokeswoman Molly Gillaspie said. 

A few things: first off, I forgot that the Pence brothers were multiplying . . . God help us! 

Second, Ms. Gillaspie, perhaps you weren't aware that underground pollution plumes take decades to develop. In fact, I'll bet that someone on one of the Pence teams has already acknowledged this:

Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah called the findings “a years old issue” that the vice president has addressed before. She did not elaborate.

So, what is it? Did the pollution occur during the Pence family's "stewardship" of Kiel Bros. or did it occur after? Maybe before? All I've seen is blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah old blah blah blah liberal media blah blah baseless.

The fact that the company stuck taxpayers with the lion’s share of the cleanup bill rankles some observers, especially in light of the family’s reputation as budget hawks critical of government spending.

You don't say. It's like I've seen this tragicomedy before.

 Greg Pence, who is seeking the vice president’s old congressional seat, has total assets worth $5.7 to $26 million.

Nearly a decade after going under, Kiel Bros. sites still ranked among the top 10 recipients of state money for such cleanups in Indiana in 2013, the last year for which the petroleum industry has reliable spending data for the company. That was out of more than 230 companies seeking cleanup money that year, including major gas station chains with a substantially larger presence in the state.
Founded as an oil distributor by businessman Carl Kiel in 1960, the company expanded into the gas station business. Pence’s father, Edward, joined in the early years and, by the mid-1970s, rose to corporate vice president.
Mike Pence says he worked for the business — which mostly operated under the name Tobacco Road — starting at age 14. But it was his brother who took over after Edward Pence’s 1988 death and eventually became president.

Just so we're clear: the Pence family made a ton of money running this company. This company cut costs by polluting our air and water. Now we get to pay to not be poisoned while the Pence family gets to go and bring their special sauce to the nation as a whole.

 When an underground tank leaks, companies are liable for the damage, but Indiana has been especially amenable to using public money to pay for heavily contaminated soil to be excavated and for high-powered pumps to suck toxic liquid and vapor from the soil.

The state’s payout limit was $2 million per site until Mike Pence signed a 2016 law as governor, increasing it to $2.5 million. In 2016, Indiana paid out nearly two-and-a-half times the national average per incident, according to records.

I for one can't imagine why the state can't afford to do such trivial things as reform its child welfare issues, after a mere 15 years of studying the issue.

Pence 2018: Starve the kids and poison the water!

"You didn't build that"

I recall the presidential election of 2012 and how infuriating it was to me to hear people argue, in what seemed self-evidently bad faith, that Barack Obama's statement, "you didn't build that," somehow robbed all individuals of their own accomplishments. Personally, I always viewed that statement as essentially stating that "while you did something impressive, your accomplishment rests on the prior achievements of others, public and private." It reminded me of my father's saying that each generation stands on the shoulders of the preceding generation.

Anyway, all of this is to hype a great article I read in Vox on Sunday. A few quotes, but I highly encourage anyone to click through and read the entirety:

I went to public schools through eighth grade. My parents were able to save for some of my college costs through a plan that provides tax relief for those savings. I stayed on my parent’s health insurance until I was 26 under the Affordable Care Act. I have received the earned income tax credit, targeted at those with low or moderate income. I took out federal student loans to go to law school. I am enrolled in an income-based repayment plan currently as I pay them back and have also signed up for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The way we discuss our successes as individual accomplishments and valorize some as “self-made” fails to acknowledge such systems of support.

This sounds very familiar . . . it could almost have been written by yours truly.

To be sure, I worked tremendously hard. . . . . But, I don’t think I’ve ever worked as hard as a mom who works multiple jobs for a minimum wage. Hard work is not enough. There are structures that impact success.

I agree. I earn vastly more now than I did as a public high school teacher. That is not to suggest that I work vastly harder.

When it comes to wealth in this country, we no longer have a scarcity problem. We have a distribution problem. The world produces enough food to feed everyone, we have approximately five vacant homes for each homeless person in the US and the US spends twice as much on health care as other developed countries.

All of this is to argue that when we discuss redistribution in this country, we ignore how opportunity is distributed at our own peril. My own father was the president of a fortune 500 company as I made my way through adolescence. To argue that this did not provide me more opportunities than other, less fortunate, people my age is to bury one's head in the sand. 

Like most people, I make no apology for my success (limited though it may be). I worked very hard for it and continue to work hard for it. However, I would be maximally misguided and misleading to suggest that I don't owe anyone, both public and private, for the opportunities with which I have been blessed. 

The Worm Always Turns

Anyone remember what Dante's three-headed beast was called? For some reason, this picture makes me think of that image but forget all of the details about it, as though I've somehow perfectly envisioned that beast.

I am not a Republican. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear. In my adult life, the Republican party has:

• Impeached a president for having an affair with interns (while it's own Speaker of the House was having an affair as his own wife lay dying of cancer);
• "Won" the presidency three times: once with the help of Vladimir Putin, James Comey, and the electoral college; once with the help of five Republican-appointed justices of the Supreme Court; and once "fair and square" with the help of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth;
• Pushed for deregulation of the financial industry (Bill Clinton is by no means innocent in that);
• turned a surplus in 2000 into a tax cut for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, and a subsequent deficit by 2004;
• responded to a terrorist attack by a bunch of Saudis who had been receiving hospitality and protection in Afghanistan by invading Iraq;
• responded to a financial crisis (itself a result of the deregulation of the financial industry) and subsequent Republican bailout by (dishonestly) blaming Democrats and the Community Reinvestment Act;
• voted en masse against the Affordable Care Act, notwithstanding that it was proposed as a compromise between what Democrats had long wanted (single-payer) and Republicans had proposed a very similar plan in the early 1990s as an "alternative" to what the Clintons were going to propose (ultimately derided as "Hillarycare" . . . see a pattern here?; on another note, I believe the current Republican line on the 1993 Chafee bill is that it was a bad-faith distraction, but that tells you something too, doesn't it?);
• promised for 7+ years that they would "repeal and replace" Obamacare. As I write this, in July 2018, I have yet to see a replacement from Republicans that they can even pass, let alone one that does everything they promised it would do;
• refused to even allow a hearing for the legitimate (centrist, mid-60s) nominee to the Supreme Court (call it court packing or seat stealing, the end result is the same);
• trolled Democrats from 2008-2016 about how deficits were putting us all on the "Road to Serfdom," finding their voice on overspending, conveniently, after about an 8-year hiatus;
• Of course they proved their budget hawk bonafides when they turned a big deficit in 2017 into a HUGE future budget problem, by passing another enormous tax cut for the wealthy, to which they intend to respond by cutting social security and medicaid (I guess "deficits don't matter" when they're the result of regressive Republican tax cuts).

One can easily argue the merits of the above statements (which by no means represent an exhaustive list of the bad policy/bad faith coming from the Republican party since I turned 18 in 1995), but my characterization of these events clearly IDs me.

Some people think that liberals should respond in kind to Republicans. Perhaps I'm one of those people, I don't really know. However, to any Republicans out there who believe that "both sides do it" and "the liberals are even worse," I'd like to show you what "responding in kind" actually would look like (HINT: it doesn't involve electing centrists like Obama and Clinton):

But let's imagine .... Democrats win both houses of Congress this year. Trump struggles and is pinned down by the legal reckoning he's long deserved. Democrats sweep in 2020.

A proportional backlash would include not only a bipartisanship-be-damned crusade to enact an unapologetically progressive agenda. It would also include merciless gerrymandering in every state now controlled by Democrats. It would include anti-Republican vote suppression: the closing of polling places in white suburbs, along with efforts to identify GOP voters' habits and to create hurdles to voting based on those habits. 

Both sides don't do it. In the future they could. 

Voter re-registration requirements if you have voted from the same address more than twice? Single payer healthcare? Top marginal income tax rates at 90%? Inheritance taxes at similar confiscatory levels? Private education taxes? Income and property taxes for religious organizations? Performance and de-commissioning bonds for large commercial/industrial undertakings to ensure that money exists for the inevitable environmental clean up? Mandatory liability insurance on the sale of bullets?

Am I the only one who thinks that the current race to the bottom is a bad idea? That extreme ideas batted back and forth for little reason other than to troll the other side will invariably give us worse public policy? Am I also the only one who recognizes that unilateral concessions from Democrats for the last two decades hasn't made Republican behavior any better? Democrats haven't done any of the above things. 

Anyway, I need a drink. Enough ranting for one sitting.

Judicial Review

This is the notion that the Constitution ultimately means what the Supreme Court says it means. For those desiring a history lesson undergirding this concept, look up the matter of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In a nutshell, judicial review of laws is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution enumerates the judicial power under Article III, which states in full:

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Please note that this does not state that the Supreme Court or any other court has the right to determine whether certain laws are constitutional or otherwise. It merely states that the Supreme Court, and its inferior courts, have jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution or the laws of the United States. It wasn't until 1803, approximately 15 years after ratification, that the Supreme Court declared that it had the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

All of this is to point out that judicial review is not pre-ordained. Congress controls the money and the Executive controls the guns. The Courts control neither. It is only through the acceptance of this authority by other political branches that the Courts continue to have an effect. 

Hypothetical question: if the Supreme Court, in 1861 in the midst of the Civil War, had told President Lincoln that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional and ordered him to remedy the situation, would he have? What would have happened if he hadn't?

Second hypothetical: if the Supreme Court, at the height of WWII, had ordered FDR to dismantle the Japanese internment camps, would he have? What would have happened if he didn't?

Third hypothetical: Following Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ordered schools desegregated. Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to "support" and "defend" the segregationists who attempted to prevent the desegregation of Little Rock Central H.S. by the Little Rock 9 in 1957. What if Pres. Eisenhower hadn't federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division? What if Arkansas Gov. Faubus had openly defied a Supreme Court order and nothing happened?

These hypotheticals point out that obedience to judicial orders will only happen when the other branches voluntarily do so. The above-three hypotheticals could have happened differently than they did.

In light of that, I quote this in closing:

the current relative equilibrium in which elites in both parties support strong judicial review and refrain from using the tools the Constitution gives them to attack the courts is not an inevitable feature of American constitutionalism. Merrick Garland is the canary in the coal mine: elite polarization and the fact that once Kennedy retires the Court is going to be strongly and consistently aligned with one partisan faction or another will have major consequences for the federal judiciary. Barring a sudden, unlikely partisan realignment, short-staffed courts are going to become endemic in times of divided government. Manipulation of the size of the court and other major clashes between the courts and the other branches are possible. We have only scratched the surface of the impact of the McConnellization of American constitutionalism.

Tax Burden Distribution

As I've commented on previously, there is a large effort underway to "reform" the tax code. Of course, you'll hear a lot about how these "reforms" will lead to more money for the middle class; however, you have to take a lot of "trickle down" economic theory on faith to believe that any of that money will ever reach the middle class.

What is guaranteed in this "reform" effort, of course, is that corporate taxes and inheritance taxes will go down considerably. So, if you stand to inherit more than $11,000,000 then you are guaranteed to benefit from this plan. If you work for a living, you have to take it on faith that corporations will take their newfound money and, contrary to experience from the past 20 years, raise wages.

That is the easy part.

The more interesting part, to me, is the distributional effect this will have. It seems to me that our government's priorities should be determined by a combination of our moral compass and our sense of "he who pays, plays."

Here is an interesting data point. In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33% of federal tax collections. Today it accounts for 9%.

As an interesting corollary, here is a graph showing corporate profits and wages as a percentage of all money made in America in a given year.

Now, I'm not statistician, but it appears to me that wages (the red line) have consistently shrunk, whereas profits have consistently risen.

It's almost as though we have actual evidence that trickle-down economics is a hoax and has no basis in reality. I mean, if you look at the chart above, it would almost lead you to believe that corporations don't actually use increased profits to pay increased wages! Amazing what happens when you look at actual statistics and facts and cut through the rhetoric and talking points!

However, I want to go one level deeper.

If corporations are only paying 9% of federal tax collections, why is it that so much American military might is expended to keep corporate assets, from oil rigs to container ships to intellectual property, safe?

If they're only paying 9% of the tab, why do they get so much of the benefit? Why is it that all the talk as far as paying for these corporate tax cuts is centered on cutting social security or medicare? The people who would get their benefits cut are the ones who have paid the freight for their benefits!

Just think about that the next time Sen. Empty Suit Toy Soldier Todd Young or Vice President Taliban Cotton Mather Pence talks about "reforming" the tax code.

Don't Say You Weren't Told

I've stated before how frustrating it is when I hear people say something to the effect of "Who could have predicted that X would have had Y consequences?" It's frustrating for me when I predicted that this action would have those consequences. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I predicted:

• That the War in Iraq would go poorly
• That deregulating financial markets would result in a financial crisis
• That Obama's policies would not create runaway inflation, at least not in the short-to-medium term (we still don't know if/whether Obama's policies, if continued for 50 years, will create runaway inflation; however, 50 years from now, it's hard to continue to characterize them as "Obama's policies")
• That "Obamacare" would not result in the end of freedom and a 1,000-year reign of socialist terror (or whatever the nightmare scenarios being pushed on Hannity are at the time)

Of course, it is easy in hindsight to sit around and say, "I told you so." 

So, given that, I will tell you this up front:

•  The Republican Party's "tax reform" is anything but reform, though it will be
•  An enormous tax giveaway to the already wealthy that will
• Explode the national debt and
• Explode the annual deficit and will
• Not achieve the stated goal of increasing economic growth

With respect to the growth, here is a chart of American growth over the years:

Note that Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1986, and George W. Bush cut taxes dramatically in 2001 and 2003. Do you see the dramatic and lasting leaps in GDP growth? I don't. This idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will kickstart economic growth is simply not supported by the facts.

As a litigator, I know that if I have to argue my theory of the case despite the facts, I'm in for a bad day. Perhaps someday, the median Republican voter will realize that she has been sold a bill of goods on this "trickle down" theory of economic prosperity.

In closing, by way of regurgitating that I am telling you right now what the results of this tax "reform" will be, I leave you with a quote from Paul Krugman:

I very much doubt that additional facts or analysis are going to matter much for the fate of the Trump tax cuts. It’s obvious to pretty much everyone – I suspect even those pushing the cuts – that they will confer huge benefits on the wealthy, do little if anything for the middle class, and greatly increase the deficit. 

Budget Hawkery

There are a lot of congressional critters who like to claim that they are budget "hawks" and want to reduce the budget. Similarly, I know a lot of people who proclaim their "fiscal conservatism," which I take to mean something similar to budget hawkery.

Let's test the mettle of these convictions.

If you claim to be a budget "Hawk," I want to hear from YOU either (a) how much more you are willing to pay in taxes to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have; or (b) which programs that you actually use you are willing to see eliminated in order to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have.

Point of order - The following are considered non-responsive and get no credit:

• General statements of principle and ideology (i.e. "government should be smaller," "government should not be in the education business" (if you don't have kids), etc.)
• Cliched pablum (i.e. "cut waste," "the rich should pay their fair share")
• Statements demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the actual facts (i.e. "cut taxes and that will grow the economy so much that we won't have to cut any programs," "eliminate foreign aid")

For eight years I heard Republicans, both local and nationally, bitch and moan about the budget deficit after uttering nary a peep from 2001-2009. Now that a Republican is in the White House, apparently the budget deficit and the national debt (two different things, by the way) stopped being a problem.

Now is the time to "put your money where your mouth is." As they say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." 

Full Disclosure: I don't actually expect any good-faith answers to this question from any self-styled "fiscal conservatives." If I get one, I will be shocked.

A Detour on Taxes - Why I Don't Feel Represented

This debate on taxes is so frustrating for me (as evidenced by the volume of posts on the subject) because I do not feel represented. The debate does not purport to address any of my concerns, yet somehow risks making them more grave.

Inequality of Wealth
I don't really care that some people make more than I do. That's to be expected and applauded. Similarly, I make more than some others. That too is to be expected and applauded. However, like most things, when taken to an extreme, inequality is bad for our society. Taken to extremes, extreme wealth inequality generally leads to a police state (see Saudi Arabia) or a violent revolution (see the French Revolution). I don't much like the idea of either one.

We are at a time in American history where the inequality of wealth between a tiny sliver of the population and, almost literally, everyone else is at historical levels. The wealthiest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

As the graph shows, we have not had wealth inequality like the present in nearly a century, and I think we all know how well that worked out. Note also that this graph stops four years ago, in 2013. Who thinks that this 40-year trend in wealth inequality has reversed in the past four years?

Given these facts, why is it that the entirety of the debate is on lowering the top bracket, lowering the corporate rate, and eliminating the inheritance tax? As discussed previously, the inheritance tax doesn't even kick in until one person has $5.5m to devise; it seems to me, based on the graph above, that someone who stands to inherit the first $5.5m is doing pretty well and does not need an extra helping hand from the government; there are plenty of other causes that could use the extra money, and a trust fund baby doesn't top my list.

"Pro-Growth" Tax Reform

Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Co. like to label their tax cuts for the wealthy as "pro-growth." Taking them at their word (a dubious assertion, given that there is precisely zero evidence that cutting taxes at the margins spurs long-term growth in any way . . . more on that below), I am still skeptical of their plans.

Since the Great Recession, 85% of this nation's economic growth has accrued to 1% of the population. If the vast majority of this growth is going to go to the very wealthy, the vast majority of the benefits of this tax plan are going to go to the very wealthy, and the middle class (i.e. $50,000 - $150,000/year/family) is going to pick up the tab, someone please explain why I would support this plan.

Further, these claims of "unleashing" the economy are highly dubious. The Reagan wannabes (looking at you VP Pence and Speaker Ryan) assure us that if they only get to cut taxes for the wealthy, those wealthy people will invest in the economy, thereby juicing the economy and leading to increased rewards for everyone. While we're at it, I've got a great piece of beach-front property in Nevada I'd like to sell you.

If cutting taxes worked so well to boost the economy, why doesn't Mike Pence talk about the economic boom we had following W's tax cuts in the early '00s? Why do they have to resort to the early 1980s to find an example that supposedly "worked"?  The simple answer to this is:

Thus, there is little evidence to support that the Bush tax cuts had a significant effect on growth. In addition, contrary to the argument that the tax cuts would pay for themselves being made at the time the tax cuts were enacted, the deficit ballooned as a result of the tax cuts.

Pressing Needs

This country has them. Lots of them.

Let's start with education.

Public education is chronically underfunded, notwithstanding some people's insistence that school teachers are some kind of "Lucky Ducky" getting over on taxpayers, with a cushy job, short hours, and long vacations. I can speak of my own teaching experience and point out that this characterization is wholly inaccurate. Most teachers I know work no fewer than 10-12 hours/day (in line with most professionals). Further, that they only have 185 "work" (contract) days per year probably understates the number of weekends they work and certainly overlooks the fact that they are laid off every summer. Incidentally, I would note that construction workers are able to collect unemployment when they get laid off in the winter; teachers are not able to collect it when they are laid off in the summer. Interpret that as you will. Nonetheless, public education is chronically underfunded.

Next, lets talk about higher education. The UNCF was spot on when they said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Well, we are now in a situation where plenty of capable young people are unable to get the education that will enable them to thrive economically later in their lives. This is classic "penny wise and pound foolish" behavior. How much possible economic growth are we foregoing? Further, how much social solidarity are we destroying by increasingly making college the purview of the born-wealthy few? Do we really want a society where the only people who can ever afford to become doctors and lawyers are those born into wealthy families? Also, what about the social solidarity, economic opportunities, and societal opportunities that are lost when we saddle our young people with mortgage-sized student loans? All of the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't change the fact that college could be paid for with a summer job for my parents' generation; a summer job, school year job, and modest loan for my generation; and now requires a veritable mortgage, regardless of how much you work.

When we discuss the issues with education, I think it is a fair question to ask whether giving a tax break to the wealthy, who (as illustrated above) are doing better than ever in America, is a good priority. I think it isn't. I'm not an elected official.

Readers of this blog also know my feelings about healthcare. It is unbelievably expensive and out of reach for more and more people. I understand that hospitals don't turn people away if they need emergency care. What is often left out of that discussion is what is done for people with chronic symptoms, not acute problems. Also, what are the financial consequences of that "willingness" of hospitals to provide emergency care to the acutely in need?

Bankruptcy.

Here is an interesting graphic:

Two things stand out on this chart for me. The first is the sharp drop in bankruptcies in 2005. I believe the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Law of 2005 is responsible for that. An abjectly terrible law, in my opinion, but not relevant to today's discussion. Notice also the change in roughly 2010. Certainly the downward graph reflects our tepid recovery from the Great Recession, but I also think that it reflects the effects of Obamacare.

I could go on and on, but I believe my point has been made. This talk of cutting taxes on the high-end of the socioeconomic scale is simply indefensible, for reasons both practical and moral. That is why I do not feel as though I am well represented in this debate.

9/11 Memories

What to say? The worst day in American History in my lifetime was 16 years ago. I got home from class at IPFW and heard that a plan hit the World Trade Center. As I was watching the news reports, a second plane struck the WTC. Shortly thereafter, the towers came down and the entirety of the attack became apparent.

Horrific.

I still had to wait on tables at Applebee's in Fort Wayne that evening. I note that for no purpose other than to point out that our capitalist machine grinds on, indifferent to human suffering, for better and worse.

"Legalize the Constitution"

I saw a bumper sticker that said this yesterday, and I couldn't help but think two things:

1. What a nice sentiment, and
2. Huh?

I understand that people want to wrap themselves in the constitution and claim fealty and loyalty to this supposedly "divine" document. I too revere the constitution, including its many flaws which in a perfect world would be rectified, but we man is a fallen being.

That aside, here is a little hierarchy for those playing along at home:

• The Constitution is atop all else in our legal framework. It is a vague statement of principles and grant of power to the federal government. It is the supreme law of the land and trumps (no pun intended) all other assertions of power. If it violates the constitution, it is illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law violates the constitution. See Marbury v. Madison.
• Based on the power granted under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to pass laws; the Executive has the power to execute the laws; and the Court has the power to adjudicate controversies about such laws (including whether they comply with the Constitution). This is basic schoolhouse rock stuff.
• As the constitution is generally vague, so too are laws at times. For example, a law that says that people aren't allowed to "pollute" needs a bit of explanation. Clearly, dumping cyanide into Lake Michigan, millions of gallons at a time, seems to count as pollution. What about throwing batteries away in my normal trash can? What about dumping a port-a-pot into the local creek? Poop is natural after all. I have a hard time entrusting our know-nothing congress critters to make that determination. I am more comfortable allowing them to designate that decision to actual experts who do such crazy things as read books in order to learn about what they're doing. This is where the administrative state comes into play.
• In the example above, the EPA would then be tasked with determining what amounts to "pollution" under the Clean Water Act. Different presidents will likely employ professionals who see things their way, i.e. a Republican will likely employ an EPA administrator who believes that environmental laws should be read narrowly, whereas a Democrat will likely employ an EPA administrator who reads environmental laws broadly. Nonetheless, they are each, in theory, employing knowledgeable people who can interpret and apply the law that Congress passed.

Please note, Congress can't pass laws that violate the constitution. Agencies can't pass rules that violate their "enabling" laws. These issues (whether a law violates the constitution and whether a regulation/rule violates its enabling statute OR the constitution) are litigated constantly.

To legalize the constitution is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense because literally nothing is legal if it does not abide the constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, please note that there is more to the story than the framework laid out above, particularly when we start dealing with state and local laws, whether the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated," whether laws have been pre-empted, etc. That is a discussion for another day.

Origination

For the 4th of July, I will leave aside the cheap jingoism that too often accompanies the holiday and instead focus on what I believe was the founding idea of this great nation of ours.

For millennia, the commoners (like my ancestors) were expected to live at the pleasure of their royal "betters." The "landed gentry" was a term that arose in the context of a society where there were a few people who had land, and then there was everyone else who worked said land for the pleasure of its owners. These were the feudal lords, and at the culmination of this system were the titular royals who had the authority to grant land and titles, both of which directly correlated to more bountiful and comfortable lives. Pardon the oversimplification.

At some point, our founding fathers determined that they could set up a new system whereby power and wealth amassed not based on one's parentage but based on one's merit. Again, pardon the oversimplification.

I still believe that this is a beautiful aspiration: the populace governs itself, instituting policies that are based on objective evidence, and rejecting the policies that repeatedly fail. . . stubbornly refusing to repeat the mistakes of our peoples' collective history. A place, not unlike ancient Rome, where good ideas are always welcome; where we understand that those good ideas make our society better and are more than a mere vehicle to launch people into perpetual un/underemployment.

Maintaining such an idea requires vigilance and a constant longview. What may be good for today and tomorrow may be immeasurably bad for the day after. We need to be mindful of such things.

As I've written before, good policy outcomes in the past don't necessarily mean good outcomes in the future. Perhaps, we should have a conversation as to what outcomes we want. Then, we can move on to how we get there. That is the essence of self governance.

Happy 4th of July. Be careful.

My Understanding of History and its Lessons - Part I

I am not a historian, nor do I play one on TV. In fact, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I did, however, major in the humanities in college and pay at least passing attention in high school. In light of that extensive scant historical training, I'd like to offer a lesson I gleaned from it.

In roughly 1908, Henry Ford perfected a fairly revolutionary idea for his day: assembly line manufacturing. Contrary to popular belief, Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line, but he did perfect it.

To say the least, manufacturing made the fabrication of fairly complex things, like say an automobile, considerably easier and less expensive to do, when done on a large scale and supported by well-capitalized industrialists. While the manufacture of the automobile put many previous artisan car builders out of business (if not immediately, then eventually), it put the automobile within the financial reach of considerably more customers than previously. I don't have the exact figures, but a car made in roughly 1900 cost about $1,000 in 1900 dollars. By 1924, Ford was selling the Model T for about $265 in 1924 dollars . . . a price cut of about 75% in real dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

That is one hell of an innovation, and the ripple effects were clearly far and wide. An automobile suddenly became affordable for the "masses," and was no longer a plaything for the wealthy. As a result, the American auto industry became one of the industrial powerhouses of mankind, and a thing for the country to admire and celebrate. Additionally, the nation responded by constructing an interstate highway system and built out its cities, towns, and counties with car-passable roads. A small town in central Indiana even started an endurance race to see who could make a car go 500 miles the fastest.

Unfortunately, it also had the effect of replacing high-skilled jobs with relatively low-skilled jobs. Previously, building a transmission, for example, was a very difficult thing for one person to know how and be able to do. After Henry Ford, it was still a difficult task, but when you're building 100,000 of them with 500 workers, they get considerably cheaper to build per unit and each person only has to know how to put one portion of it together. The world can have transmissions for much cheaper. Cheaper transmissions mean cheaper cars. More people can afford cars. The trucking industry becomes a thing (to name but a single example). All well and good, except for the guy who used to make a good living hand-building transmissions and now works putting one portion of it together on an assembly line for a fraction of the pay.

Bummer. It is a good thing that, eventually, people came to realize that when every member of the workforce makes so little he can't afford much "stuff," then the builders of that "stuff" can't sell any "stuff." America relied on the benevolence of employers to pay well for awhile until it became untenable, and we started making laws about unions, labor practices, etc. (Mind you, there is a lot of history that I am omitting when discussing working conditions, pay, unionization, worker's rights, etc.) However, we ultimately figured out a way to make it work and have the government and industry working symbiotically in such a manner as afforded the citizens of this country to be balanced in their contentment with their present station in life and able to consume on the one hand, and not becoming idle but instead striving to better themselves and their families through hard work on the other hand.

It sure is a good thing that President William Howard Taft, by no means Mt. Rushmore material, decided that embracing the innovations of Henry Ford, and allowing local governments to work in their own immediate interests to develop roadways, was a better course of action than trying to protect the livelihoods of the hand-made transmission guild or the buggy whip makers.

Because President Taft and his successors understood that innovation is good and allowed Henry Ford to profit from it without seeking to protect the handsome profits of the Pullman Railroad Car Company, to give one example, or the jobs of the buggy whip makers, to give another, the American auto industry was allowed to flourish. Because the American auto industry thrived, we were able to develop the American trucking industry. With affordable coast-to-coast shipping, California vineyards could sell their overpriced Pinot Noir to rich financiers in New York (one example illustrating the point and utility of national shipping).

Lets not forget that things could have gone the other way. We were not destined to be a superpower but became one because we made good decisions along the way. Making good decisions in the future also seems like a good idea. Draw your own conclusions as to what my lesson was. Answer tomorrow.