There has been some discussion on NextDoor in the past day or so regarding the concert that occurred in Meadowood Park yesterday (Saturday, 10/14).
As an initial matter, I was not there and would like to extend my apologies to the organizers. I have no good excuse for my lack of attendance, I have erred, and I am sorry.
However, with respect to the discussion on NextDoor, this is ridiculous. People are on there complaining about the language of some local rapper.
Granted, the rappers should know his audience and not drop the f-bombs when he is surrounded by small children. However...
1. Kids These Days
Maybe the next discussion on NextDoor will not turn into an opportunity for people to brag about how they raised their own kids right but nobody else raised their kids wrong. It will be a first. The other thing I particularly love is how people "back door brag" about themselves by invoking their parents and "I was raised a certain way . . .".
Look, if you think that you're the last person to value hard work, you're not. You're just a narcissist. Similarly, if you believe that you are the first person in the world to think that "kids these days" just "don't have any respect" and feel "entitled" to everything, you're looking and a lot like my grumpy old uncle who died in the early 1990s. Care to share any complaints about "kids these days" with their "rock n' roll" and their "sock hops"? "Why, in my day, we listened to the sound of the belt hitting our behinds, and daggumit, we liked it!"
Simply put, take a broader view. The kids are fine. They are doing fewer drugs than "we" were doing, they are having less sex than "we" were, and they are studying more in school than "we" were. If we think their music sucks and fails to pay proper respect to their elders, perhaps that is normal and to be expected? If we didn't feel that way, perhaps something would be amiss.
2. First Amendment Thoughts
I've spoken a lot about the First Amendment on this blog. This is particularly interesting because I do not practice law in any area that is remotely associated with First Amendment (or Constitutional, for that matter) jurisprudence.
However, I want to be clear. The First Amendment does not apply to private actions; it applies to governmental actions. The suggestion that a permit to hold a concert in a public park should be contingent on the content of the speeches/performances in the park is blatantly unconstitutional. To withhold such permits because you don't like rap music is no different than withholding the permits because you don't like what Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump want to say at the political rally they (hypothetically) intend to hold in the park.
Inasmuch as we have obscenity laws, it is certainly within the purview of the SPD to write the rapper tickets or shut him down upon the explication of said profanities. Insofar as we don't, perhaps the Town Council wants to pass some (or not). If enough people in Speedway were passionate enough about the issue, one would presume that our political system would respond. Personally, I don't think that it's worth it, but I'm also not on the Town Council.
3. What DO You Want?
As I noted at the outset, I am very appreciative of the effort to put on this concert. I wish more such efforts would be undertaken in this neighborhood. I could hear the bands from my back yard, and I thought they sounded amazing!
I think that Speedway, the Home of the American Dream, should encourage local kids to play in rock n' roll bands (and by that term, I include rap, hip hop, metal, etc.). Playing music is a positive form of expression and a positive expenditure of youthful energy and exuberance. The kids who are good at basketball get a world of support, but the kid who likes to play drums is mostly looked upon suspiciously and given an "opportunity" to march in the band. (Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band. However, it is my experience that there are a lot of kids who love to play music but aren't wild about the opportunities to do so in school. Imagine if the only sports that Speedway offered were polo and cricket; I think a lot of kids would yearn for football, basketball, and baseball).
These musically inclined kids/young adults are the beating heart of this community, and we should be encouraging them to participate, just as the organizers of yesterday's festival did. Otherwise, what is the park going to be other than a place where people walk along the trail and look at the woods? (I note that a lot of the same people complaining about the music also complain about the kids in the park. I can't even . . .).
Bottom line on this is that Meadowood Park is going to be as awesome as we allow it to be. We can use it for positive purposes, as noted above, or we can fail to do so and allow the worst element to fill that vacuum. One way or another, the park will be put to use. I prefer it be used for positive and fun things, such as concerts, festivals, farmers markets, etc., as opposed to neutral or negative uses.
Just my opinion.
4. Yesterday is Gone
It ain't coming back folks. The days of having the sock hop with the Beach Boys cover band are over. If we are going to have events that are designed to encourage young people to live in Speedway (or even visit here), we have to accommodate modern preferences. Speedway can't, and shouldn't, remain Mayberry forever. The more we allow this Town's discourse to be dominated by a longing for yesteryear, the more this Town's discourse will neglect tomorrow.
I vote for an agenda focused on improving tomorrow, as opposed to a spiteful and futile attempt to recreate yesterday.
In conclusion, I heartily thank the organizers of the festival and all of the people who came out as spectators as well as all of the bands that participated. To the bands, I know you probably didn't get paid, and I thank you for donating your Saturday. To the organizers, I know you likewise probably didn't get paid, and I thank you for putting the needs of your community (regardless of how broadly you define "your community") ahead of your own needs.
To the detractors of this event, I understand your point; I think that inasmuch as you are concerned about this community, please dedicate those concerns to positive efforts that will enhance the value of the community and refrain from the backbiting and second-guessing that is destructive of our community.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Russian Hacking
In the past week, I have gotten 4X as many views on this blog from Russian readers as I have from American readers. Huh. Perhaps someone has a theory as to why so many Russians want to read my little blog about Speedway, IN, that doesn't involve ongoing efforts by Russia to meddle in our national discourse. I have no desire to overstate the importance of this blog, which is probably only read regularly by a few dozen people; I just find it interesting that my "Trump Critical" views attract so many Russian readers.
My stats must be fake news.
My stats must be fake news.
Monday, October 9, 2017
"Right to Work"
I am pro-union.
Now that we have that out in the open, let's get to the substance of this post: Why right-to-work (RTW) laws are disingenuous, fundamentally unfair, and probably unconstitutional.
1. They're Disingenuous
I have never met someone who (a) wants to work for a particular company, (b) wants desperately not to be a member of the union in place; and (c) can't find comparable non-union employment. This is the individual who this law is designed to "protect," and such individual resides, I think, right between Moby Dick and Santa Claus. In other words, whoever this law is supposed to help (according to its proponents) does not exist.
The real beneficiaries of this law are the business owners who want to suppress wages, plain and simple. Note to such business owners, if you need the government's aid to suppress wages in order to stay in business, you have a business model problem and you are depending on the government for your livelihood every bit as much as a welfare recipient.
These laws are disingenuous in their purported efforts to "protect workers."
2. They're Fundamentally Unfair
I know that "fairness" is a dirty word these days; make of that what you will in regard to the society that we've created. However, a right-to-work law states that one can't be forced to pay the union for its services. It does not say that the union doesn't have to represent these freeloaders. In fact, the union is forced to represent these freeloaders, come hell or high water.
To the point of disingenuous, stated above, nowhere do the supporters of these laws acknowledge that the union must represent all the workers, whether they pay dues or not. RTW supporters like to say that unions will "earn their membership through the free market," but this too is disingenuous: who pays for things they get for free? Why would I pay for representation when I get it for free anymore than I would pay for sunshine?
3. They're Probably Unconstitutional
Not that I expect our stolen Supreme Court (looking at you Gorsuch) to do anything about this, but follow me here:
Now that we have that out in the open, let's get to the substance of this post: Why right-to-work (RTW) laws are disingenuous, fundamentally unfair, and probably unconstitutional.
1. They're Disingenuous
I have never met someone who (a) wants to work for a particular company, (b) wants desperately not to be a member of the union in place; and (c) can't find comparable non-union employment. This is the individual who this law is designed to "protect," and such individual resides, I think, right between Moby Dick and Santa Claus. In other words, whoever this law is supposed to help (according to its proponents) does not exist.
The real beneficiaries of this law are the business owners who want to suppress wages, plain and simple. Note to such business owners, if you need the government's aid to suppress wages in order to stay in business, you have a business model problem and you are depending on the government for your livelihood every bit as much as a welfare recipient.
These laws are disingenuous in their purported efforts to "protect workers."
2. They're Fundamentally Unfair
I know that "fairness" is a dirty word these days; make of that what you will in regard to the society that we've created. However, a right-to-work law states that one can't be forced to pay the union for its services. It does not say that the union doesn't have to represent these freeloaders. In fact, the union is forced to represent these freeloaders, come hell or high water.
To the point of disingenuous, stated above, nowhere do the supporters of these laws acknowledge that the union must represent all the workers, whether they pay dues or not. RTW supporters like to say that unions will "earn their membership through the free market," but this too is disingenuous: who pays for things they get for free? Why would I pay for representation when I get it for free anymore than I would pay for sunshine?
3. They're Probably Unconstitutional
Not that I expect our stolen Supreme Court (looking at you Gorsuch) to do anything about this, but follow me here:
- Corporations are people (distasteful as that may be);
- Unions are corporations;
- Therefore unions are people;
- RTW laws preclude unions from collecting mandatory dues from members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
- The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forces unions (people, remember) to representing all members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
- Therefore, RTW, in combination with the NLRA, forces unions to work on behalf of people without compensation.
Someone explain to me how this does not enslave the unions.
End Note
As I said at the outset, I support unions and will debate their merits with any and all comers. However, this post is NOT about the merits of unionism but rather about right-to-work laws.
Saturday, October 7, 2017
A Data Point on Housing and Wealth
Interpret as you will:
Almost half of all postwar suburban homes built in the United States had FHA mortgage guarantees. From 1934 through 1962, whites received 98 percent.
Repeatedly Wrong
The weatherman on the news probably has the best job in the world. He is wrong, over and over again, yet people still believe him.
The rest of the world doesn't work that way.
If I tell clients that I will win a lawsuit and then I don't, those clients probably will not retain me again. If I tell a client that the worst-case scenario of a lawsuit gone bad is a verdict of $100,000 against him, and the jury comes back with a $250,000 verdict, I have a lot of explaining.
If a mechanic tells me that the problem with my car is the fuel pump, I expect him to be right when I pay him $500 (or however much) to fix the fuel pump; I expect that to address the problem.
However, if you are a prominent member of Congress who spent the years 2009-2017 warning that a certain, unnamed president was going to create "runaway inflation," you apparently get to keep your credibility, even though you couldn't have been more wrong. You might even get to become Speaker of the House.
Indeed, some of those who spent such years warning that deficit spending of any kind would absolutely destroy America now have jobs directing the federal Office of Management and Budget, even though none of these predictions came true.
It's a good thing we listen to these same people now, don't you think? Now that I think of it, aren't these the same people who told us that the Iraq War was going to be a huge success, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the "insurgency" was in its "last throes" in 2004? Have these people ever atoned for their errors? Have they ever been held to account? Has anyone who voted for these people ever asked, "Why do I believe anything these people tell me, when they've been proven wrong repeatedly over the years?"
Huh.
The rest of the world doesn't work that way.
If I tell clients that I will win a lawsuit and then I don't, those clients probably will not retain me again. If I tell a client that the worst-case scenario of a lawsuit gone bad is a verdict of $100,000 against him, and the jury comes back with a $250,000 verdict, I have a lot of explaining.
If a mechanic tells me that the problem with my car is the fuel pump, I expect him to be right when I pay him $500 (or however much) to fix the fuel pump; I expect that to address the problem.
However, if you are a prominent member of Congress who spent the years 2009-2017 warning that a certain, unnamed president was going to create "runaway inflation," you apparently get to keep your credibility, even though you couldn't have been more wrong. You might even get to become Speaker of the House.
Indeed, some of those who spent such years warning that deficit spending of any kind would absolutely destroy America now have jobs directing the federal Office of Management and Budget, even though none of these predictions came true.
It's a good thing we listen to these same people now, don't you think? Now that I think of it, aren't these the same people who told us that the Iraq War was going to be a huge success, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the "insurgency" was in its "last throes" in 2004? Have these people ever atoned for their errors? Have they ever been held to account? Has anyone who voted for these people ever asked, "Why do I believe anything these people tell me, when they've been proven wrong repeatedly over the years?"
Huh.
Gun Control & Mental Health
Sometimes, I wonder if The Onion is still satirical or, rather, the only publication with the guile to accurately describe the world in which we live.
Take, for example, this mock-op-ed by "Paul Ryan":
Take, for example, this mock-op-ed by "Paul Ryan":
The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.
You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.
Sometimes, all you can do is tip your hat. Please read the whole thing for perspective.The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Gerrymandering
This is what partisan gerrymandering looks like, and it is wrong on both sides. Please take special note of the vote totals, particularly in the presidential years of 2008 and 2012.
There is a case before the Supreme Court right now asking whether this is (a) constitutional and (b) justiciable. I suppose we'll see what Justice Kennedy has to say (because Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch will uphold the district lines, guaranteed; Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will likely vote to strike them down . . . that leaves Kennedy).
This Must be #FakeNews
The federal government just awarded Equifax a multi-million dollar, no-bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and prevent fraud.
Yes, that Equifax.
From Above the Law:
Yes, that Equifax.
From Above the Law:
I was initially under the impression that my staff was sharing a copy of The Onion, until I realized this story was, in fact, true.— Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), in a letter to the IRS, after learning last week the agency awarded the beleaguered Equifax a government contract worth $7.25 million under a no-bid contract. Under the terms of the agreement, Equifax will be tasked with verifying taxpayer identities and preventing fraud.
QOTD:
While this quote didn't technically originate today, I just discovered it. Lord knows we need some levity right about now. Enjoy:
“The best stuff coming out of Nashville is all by women except for Chris Stapleton. He’s great. The guys just wanna sing about getting fucked up. They’re just doing hip-hop for people who are afraid of black people. I like the new Kendrick Lamar record, so I’ll just listen to that.”Steve Earle, ladies and gentlemen.
Psst, hey buddy, how much for the Congressman?
Courtesy of the New York Times, the Congress Members who have received the most from the NRA:
It saddens me to see two members of the great state of Indiana on this list. I will not be voting for either one, but that is no shock to anyone who has read this blog.
Senate
1. John McCain
Ariz.2. Richard Burr
N.C.3. Roy Blunt
Mo.4. Thom Tillis
N.C.5. Cory Gardner
Co.6. Marco Rubio
Fla.7. Joni Ernst
Iowa8. Rob Portman
Ohio9. Todd Young
Ind.10. Bill Cassidy
La.
1. French Hill
Ark.2. Ken Buck
Co.3. David Young
Iowa4. Mike Simpson
Ind.5. Greg Gianforte
Mont.6. Don Young
Ark.7. Lloyd Smucker
Pa.8. Bruce Poliquin
Maine9. Pete Sessions
Tex.10. Barbara Comstock
Va.
It saddens me to see two members of the great state of Indiana on this list. I will not be voting for either one, but that is no shock to anyone who has read this blog.
"The Right Time"
I don't care to be lectured that yesterday or today are not the right times to talk about our nation's gun laws.
I similarly don't care to be lectured that it is "insensitive" to discuss global climate change in the wake of repeated tragic hurricanes.
When we see a building collapse, the first thing we do after mourning those killed therein is discuss how to improve building codes to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
When a (foreign) terrorist attack happens, the first thing we do is discuss ways to make our foreign policy more aggressive so that we can ensure that every last person with even the tiniest amount of sympathy for terror-related causes is killed (dead as a door nail).
When a bridge collapses, we again address building regulations.
When insurance rates skyrocket we have a spirited (if ill-informed) debate about why it happened and what we can do about it.
Why is it that the only time we can't talk about (1) the cause of a tragedy and (2) the appropriate response thereto is when an American decides to use a weapon of war for its sole designated purpose: killing human beings en mass?
I similarly don't care to be lectured that it is "insensitive" to discuss global climate change in the wake of repeated tragic hurricanes.
When we see a building collapse, the first thing we do after mourning those killed therein is discuss how to improve building codes to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
When a (foreign) terrorist attack happens, the first thing we do is discuss ways to make our foreign policy more aggressive so that we can ensure that every last person with even the tiniest amount of sympathy for terror-related causes is killed (dead as a door nail).
When a bridge collapses, we again address building regulations.
When insurance rates skyrocket we have a spirited (if ill-informed) debate about why it happened and what we can do about it.
Why is it that the only time we can't talk about (1) the cause of a tragedy and (2) the appropriate response thereto is when an American decides to use a weapon of war for its sole designated purpose: killing human beings en mass?
Elections Count
As Barack Obama so famously said, "Elections have consequences." Indeed they do. If they didn't, then we would have no Affordable Care Act. If they didn't, we would have Justice Garland instead of Justice Gorsuch.
Elections matter.
Unfortunately, the rave these days is to make it harder, not easier, to vote. However, at least Indiana has a system where you can check to see if your registration is up to date.
Here is the link.
Please forward this to your friends and have them ensure that they are properly registered to vote. Politicians care about what their voters think about issues; they don't care nearly as much about what their constituents writ large think about issues. It makes sense: If I represented 1,000 people but only 5 of them voted, I would only need to make 3 of them happy enough to vote for me again.
Elections matter.
Unfortunately, the rave these days is to make it harder, not easier, to vote. However, at least Indiana has a system where you can check to see if your registration is up to date.
Here is the link.
Please forward this to your friends and have them ensure that they are properly registered to vote. Politicians care about what their voters think about issues; they don't care nearly as much about what their constituents writ large think about issues. It makes sense: If I represented 1,000 people but only 5 of them voted, I would only need to make 3 of them happy enough to vote for me again.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Ongoing Dishonesty
I would take right-wing rants about President Obama a lot more seriously if they were grounded in facts. Take, for example, this Ed Rogers hactackular entitled "The Lazy, Dishonest Democratic Arguments Against Tax Reform." Given that he may as well be talking about me, I figure I should respond to him.
Next, I would like to see some evidence that your tax cuts actually boost the economy. Certainly, if growth had exploded after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we would be inundated with graphs, data, etc. The absence of same is striking, no?
Second, I will thank Mr. Rogers to refrain from attacking my motives. That is the essence of a bad-faith argument. I could attack his, and simply state that he wants to keep the donor dollars flowing. I am, notably, refraining from that argument. Thank you in advance Mr. Hacktacular, for paying me the same courtesy.
Well, now that we have that cleared up . . . can I just disregard Mr. Rogers yet?
And as far as restoring economic growth, I agree! Let's do it! However, I will NOT line up with the same policies that have failed time and again to produce growth, and that includes your tried and failed supply side "voodoo economics."
Finally, with respect to further movement into unstable political territory, this was not done by the liberals. We did not nominate an unstable sexual predator to carry our party's banner. The Republican Party owns Trump, through and through. When his policies predictably create calamity, I don't want to hear about how "nobody could have seen this coming," because I see that coming, right now. It's bad enough that I have to live with the terrible consequences of terrible policy; please don't insult me by saying I never saw it coming, because I did (see "Iraq, circa 2002").
Now that President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have announced their tax-reform plan, the usual dividing lines are being drawn. Democrats and their allies in the media are whining about tax cuts for the rich and, to some degree, how tax cuts would reduce the government’s income and increase the deficit. I’m yawning. By being so predictable, so lazy and so dishonest, Democrats are thinking they can stifle any real debate over the merits of tax reform that features economy-boosting tax cuts.Well, I'm sorry our "facts" bother you Mr. Rogers. However, if you would like me to NOT argue that your tax "reform" plan is simply a tax cut for the rich, perhaps you should come up with a tax "reform" plan that is NOT simply a tax cut for the rich. Also, in what world do tax cuts not reduce the government's income and increase the deficit? Remember how W cut taxes, exploded the deficit, crashed the economy, then handed the reigns to Obama? Remember how Obama cut the deficit in half? Remember how you ranted about the "exploding deficit" when opposing all of (and I mean every last one of) Obama's proposals?
Next, I would like to see some evidence that your tax cuts actually boost the economy. Certainly, if growth had exploded after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we would be inundated with graphs, data, etc. The absence of same is striking, no?
They would rather revert to whining about tax cuts for the rich and accuse the GOP of wanting to coddle corporations. And by the way, in their heart of hearts, many Democrats do not want the economy to improve out of fear that a little prosperity for the middle class will hurt their chances at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020. This is the political reality in which tax reform must now be considered.As noted above, if you don't want your tax plan to be characterized as "tax cuts for the rich" and "coddling corporations," perhaps designing a plan where the vast majority of the benefits don't flow to the rich and corporations would be a good start.
Second, I will thank Mr. Rogers to refrain from attacking my motives. That is the essence of a bad-faith argument. I could attack his, and simply state that he wants to keep the donor dollars flowing. I am, notably, refraining from that argument. Thank you in advance Mr. Hacktacular, for paying me the same courtesy.
Reasonable people can differ over how much growth and revenue tax cuts are likely to generate, but I don’t consider liberal activists, most elected Democrats or their allies in the media to be reasonable people when it comes to economic growth and taxes.So, reasonable people can differ over whether tax cuts boost the economy and by how much; however, anyone who disagrees with Mr. Rogers is not a reasonable person on this topic? Stated another way: anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what he's talking about.
Well, now that we have that cleared up . . . can I just disregard Mr. Rogers yet?
Under President Barack Obama, the national debt grew from $10.63 trillion to $19.95 trillion in just eight years. And according to a June 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service, his policies led to “the slowest recovery seen in the post-WWII period era. Real GDP ha[d] grown at an average pace of 2.0% per year during the [Obama-era] recovery, compared with an average rate of 4.3% during the previous 10 expansions.” Is there any reason to call such policies anything other than a failure?This conveniently overlooks the effect of the Bush tax cuts, the Bush recession, and the Republican congress for 6 of 8 years. Further, I would note that the link Mr. Rogers provides contains precisely ZERO discussion of President Obama's policies. Intellectual honesty? Methinks not.
The Democrats and their allies in the media are quick to go to the old cliche that Republicans are only in favor of tax cuts for the rich. Well, the current tax policy is so warped that in America, so few taxpayers pay such a large share of our taxes that it is impossible to have meaningful, stimulative tax reform that does not cut taxes for the people that actually pay them.Well, the old cliche about Republicans favoring tax cuts for the rich became a cliche because it is true. Further, his point about so few taxpayers paying such a large share of taxes conveniently overlooks the fact that so few citizens control such a large share of the national economic pie. Fix one and you fix the other, from what I can tell.
It’s time to try the opposite of what we endured under Obama. The consequences of perpetuating the status quo are much bigger than just the inside-the-swamp political dynamics of a tax bill’s passage or defeat. If we don’t quickly restore robust economic growth, the divisions that produced Trump will only get worse. We will move even further into unstable territory. Who knows what might come next?I too would like something other than the intransigence we experienced during the Obama years. However, Mr. Rogers, just because your party threw an 8-year temper tantrum does not mean that your political opponents should now give you everything you want, particularly when you and yours wrecked countless historical political norms to block every initiative put forth by President Obama for eight years.
And as far as restoring economic growth, I agree! Let's do it! However, I will NOT line up with the same policies that have failed time and again to produce growth, and that includes your tried and failed supply side "voodoo economics."
Finally, with respect to further movement into unstable political territory, this was not done by the liberals. We did not nominate an unstable sexual predator to carry our party's banner. The Republican Party owns Trump, through and through. When his policies predictably create calamity, I don't want to hear about how "nobody could have seen this coming," because I see that coming, right now. It's bad enough that I have to live with the terrible consequences of terrible policy; please don't insult me by saying I never saw it coming, because I did (see "Iraq, circa 2002").
On Las Vegas
Pardon me as I rant here.
This happens too often, and I am not gullible enough to believe that anything will change because of it. This is the society that we have built, one with more mass shootings than any other society in the history of mankind.
This is the society that we have built, where a country music concert becomes a killing field.
This is the society that we have built, where a black man shooting up a crowd of people is a "thug," an Arabic man doing so is a "terrorist," and a white man doing so is "crazy."
This is the society that we have built, where my initial fear after the Las Vegas shootings was that they were done by someone named Yusef Mohhamed and that crackdowns on our civil liberties would surely follow. What happened to being a nation of laws? What happened to judging the action, not the actor?
This is the society we have built, where people piously offer their "prayers" after each mass shooting and then refuse to do, literally, anything else about the problem. That strikes me as the person who apologizes for wronging you and has precisely zero plans to do anything to avoid wronging you again in the future.
We have seen the problem, and the problem is us. We will all have to answer to our maker for this someday. I don't know how I will explain myself other than to look at my shoes in shame.
Happy Taco Tuesday. Hug your kids.
UPDATE: I wish I had good news. However, upon further review, I don't.
This happens too often, and I am not gullible enough to believe that anything will change because of it. This is the society that we have built, one with more mass shootings than any other society in the history of mankind.
This is the society that we have built, where a country music concert becomes a killing field.
This is the society that we have built, where a black man shooting up a crowd of people is a "thug," an Arabic man doing so is a "terrorist," and a white man doing so is "crazy."
This is the society that we have built, where my initial fear after the Las Vegas shootings was that they were done by someone named Yusef Mohhamed and that crackdowns on our civil liberties would surely follow. What happened to being a nation of laws? What happened to judging the action, not the actor?
This is the society we have built, where people piously offer their "prayers" after each mass shooting and then refuse to do, literally, anything else about the problem. That strikes me as the person who apologizes for wronging you and has precisely zero plans to do anything to avoid wronging you again in the future.
We have seen the problem, and the problem is us. We will all have to answer to our maker for this someday. I don't know how I will explain myself other than to look at my shoes in shame.
Happy Taco Tuesday. Hug your kids.
UPDATE: I wish I had good news. However, upon further review, I don't.
The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.. . . . .
A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75 percent in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
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:
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.
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)