|
|
|
If you click on "music" in my menu to the left and then scroll down to "Jazz" in the main frame, then you will see five new mp3 files from my most recent jazz group, the Blue Lotus Quintet. If you must have a shortcut, click here, but the menu to the left won't update. (This is a low-tech site!)
Your portion of our government's debt, as of February 27, 2006, is approximately $27,892.10, assuming every man, woman, and child pays up.
If you go to Congressman Paul's website, you can see him speak, and learn more about his views. As always, I don't agree with him (or anybody) 100 percent, but I wish I could vote for him. If the Republicans were truly a "small government", fiscally responsible party instead of morality police, I would join them immediately. Instead, I'm usually forced to choose between the big government, but slightly less corrupt Democrats and a party hijacked by neo-conservatives and religious fundamentalists that give corporate handouts. The Democrats at least try to put a somewhat realistic price on their programs, and direct their programs more towards the little guy. Corporate handouts? Aren't all of those lobbying scandals just a liberal Democratic conspiracy? Google "synfuel tax credit", for instance, or "Alaska Bridge to Nowhere", or look at where the money went for Katrina. How does the actual price of the Medicare drug benefit compare to the administration's projected cost (and has the administration ever EVER overestimated the cost of their programs)? And the biggest of all is this second, unnecessary war in which we've become stuck. Trillions of Dollars (one trillion has 12 zeros - $1,000,000,000,000 - and our nation is in debt over $8,000,000,000,000) for this war, and much of it is off of the main budget, as separate, supplementary military spending bills. I'm NOT saying stop funding the troops. I'm saying don't start a third war, and get us out of this one. And remember these mistakes. Anyway, it seems as if there is at least one honest, intelligent, and forward-looking politician in Congress. My sleep is less disturbed, and I'm at least slightly less worried about our Republic. May God bless Ron Paul.
I've finally updated my letterhead.
I pay a lot of attention to news and talk dealing with finances and government fiscal policy. Politics in general also interests me, as well as the related fields of history and amature sociology. I think about these matters a lot, and would like to share a few of my thoughts. Comments, of course, are always welcome via email (or the contact form which generates an email that is sent to my inbox). In general, no one is ever satisfied with the way things are right now. As a huge, sweeping generalization - always dangerous to make - Liberals look to the future, and Conservatives look to the past. Both see problems, sometimes even the same problems, but Conservatives want to bring things back to the good old days when things were better, while Liberals tend to see some impossible ideal that we need to push towards at all costs. In fact, I first started to see myself as an all out liberal, as opposed to a left-leaning centrist, when I got into a friendly argument with my commander and First Sergeant about the decade of the 50s. All three of us agreed that things aren't good right now (2003 at the time), and don't look too good in the near future. "Things" being life in general in the United States, or the general quality of life, but taken from the fun pastime of soldiers of looking at the worst side of things and complaining about them. I made some comment along the lines of, "well, at least things are better now than for most of our history, even if we are having temporary bad times." They were almost aghast! So I said, well, compare life now to life in the 50s or 60s - see we are doing better even now, and those decades are often remembered with nostalgia. They were surprised, and retorted that the 50s were a wonderful period in time, and that we would be lucky to return to such an era, a time of safety, simplicity, stability, and patriotism. Well, relatively speaking, I guess that was a true characterization if you were a white Christian male with a corporate job and a stable marriage. But how many people fit that description? Certainly not the majority of Americans! Having a child outside of wedlock meant you were ostracized, although that just applied to the woman since there were no reliable ways to prove who the father was. If you were a woman, you made significantly less money than a man for the same job and quality of work, making current wage disparity seem almost trivial. If you were black, you faced significant, endemic, institutionalized, and completely legal discrimination in all aspects of your life. Other minorities also faced discrimination, but were more oddities than dregs of society. Safety and environmental laws, though perhaps overdone now, were practically nonexistent - lead paint? pollution? unsafe cars? What about older, less powerful technology? What about politicians being almost exclusively rich white guys, instead of the mere majority of today? But none of these arguments (and many others) phased them, and I felt almost racist and hypocritical for talking so much about white people (we were all white). I was shocked and amazed.
But the 50s, and in particular the 60s, in my mind, were times of great and fast improvement in America. We became a more just nation, and prosperity, economic opportunity, and education became attainable for everyone, even if harder for some than others. Sure there were errors, and perhaps too much idealism (such as the war on poverty), but on balance, I would have preferred to live in the 60s instead of the 50s, the 70s instead of the 60s, and so on. But though I am just barely more of an optimist than a pessimist, or perhaps because of it, I am quick to see problems, set backs, and areas in which we have lost ground. Two areas in particular are economic disparity despite average improvement, typically a Liberal observation and cause, and personal responsibility, typically a Conservative issue. In both of these areas I think things have gotten worse. But on to the specifics.
This is especially true in America, and I think that it is generally true throughout human history with some rare but major exceptions. These exceptions are typically bad or turbulent times, or the times just following them, such as when the plague drove up labor costs, improving the financial well-being of the lower classes and costing the rich quite a bit. Or when the poor get so fed up with the upper classes that they revolt - definitely a time when it pays to not have too much money (French and Russian Revolutions come to mind). But in general, if you have extra money, you can invest and save it, allowing your money to make more money. This doesn't protect you from bad luck or stupidity. If a freak natural occurrence wipes you out, that's bad luck. If you take some extra risks in hopes of higher returns, risk is risk, and someone will lose. And if you put all of your money into tulip bulbs (or internet stocks, or condos), then at some point it becomes stupidity. But in the US, you can invest in TIPS or ibonds, and always make at least a little more than the cost of inflation - your money makes money for you. If you are willing to take a little risk, our American economy has been so good for the past 100 years or so that the vast majority of people who invest in it, if properly diversified, actually can make good money from their money.
Add to that President Bush's cut on the dividend tax rate, or the quest to eliminate "double taxation". This means that, provided his income is from dividends, Richie Rich pays less percentage-wise in income taxes than Joe Shmoe your local fry guy. Yep, the low-wage laborer is paying more in taxes (again, percentage-wise) than the unemployed rich guy who's income is of the "unearned" variety (meaning dividends). Of course, I personally would rather be Richie Rich, so I'm researching dividend paying stocks instead of interest paying or pure growth investments. But here's where there is always an internal conflict in my mind. I think that taxes should be as low as possible, and agree that current taxes are too high (but necessary due to irresponsible government spending from politicians whom we don't hold accountable for their spending - I say cut the spending and then the taxes, whereas modern-day conservatives say cut taxes and spend all you want!). And I see how the dividend tax can be seen as - and from a technical standpoint in fact is - double taxation. But I think that tax cuts should always favor the poor above the middle class, and the middle class above the rich. Once the poor are paying almost no taxes, cut the taxes of the middle class and the rich. And target your taxes and tax cuts where they will create the most good - a good conservative idea in theory, but poorly implemented, as in the dividend tax cut. Here's why:
There is no education about money and investing in the public school system, and even teachers tend to know little about money matters. Like sex education, money education traditionally is the responsibility of the parents. Institutionalizing it into our public education system will create controversy and will lead to some misguided teaching, just as with sex education. However, just as there are parents who tell their children that babies come from storks and cabbage patches, there are parents who say "don't worry about money," or "put your savings in a shoe box", or "get a good corporate job and you'll be fine." Sadly, a lot of parents probably believe these things (the money myths, anyway!). And perhaps worse, there are the parents that never teach their kids anything at all about either of these topics. So, as long as there are irresponsible or unknowledgeable parents in this world, the public education system should pick up the slack. Of course, this doesn't absolve parents of this responsibility, nor - like sex education - does it take any power away from parents who take an active part in their child's education.
Oddly, "the higher your income, the more you tend to save" is less true in American than most other places, although it is still verifiably true. It is less true because Americans tend to think in economic classes and often spend beyond their means. So a person who is upper-middle class tends to feel poor without a new car every two years, and will spend more income than necessary in absolute terms to meet the standards of his economic class (really, a 3 year old Toyota Camry will take him wherever he wishes to go just as fast and much more cheaply than a new Lexus). But even so, a person earning $100,000 per year and only saving 3% is still saving twice as much as someone earning $15,000 and saving 10%. However, even in the middle, there still tends to be a predictable increase in savings dependent on income level, and once you get into the extremes the differences are extreme. The poor are often in debt and spend all of their income or more, while in the upper classes, savings rates percentage-wise are high - rich Americans are highly likely to invest a large portion of their income and/or live off of less than the income that their wealth produces.
I worry about the poor in America, and I worry about becoming a poor American. But let's face it, being poor in America isn't that bad. The poor in America face high obesity rates, but almost never hunger. American poverty means long waits for medical care and the possibility that care may bankrupt you. The American poor also face the conundrum of losing healthcare coverage if they take a job without benefits, which are often the only jobs available. They often face the choice of poverty with mediocre healthcare, or a job, personal responsibility, and some income, but with healthcare being too expensive to afford. The American poor usually do not, however, face death from illness and a lack of material goods, just one or the other. And being poor in America means that a rise in fuel costs can really hurt you, as opposed to poor people in other nations who dream of one day owning a good bicycle or motorscooter. Despite their relatively high standard of living when compared to most other people in this world, the American poor do face real, life-impacting problems.
All that said, the general happiness and well-being of the lower classes and the average for any civilization is directly related to the disparity between the haves and the havenots, regardless of whether or not the havenots actually have all that they physically need. By that standard, America is becoming a more divided and unhappy nation. Sure, it is very hard to quantify happiness, but I think that if you ever deal with the poor on a personal level, or are yourself near or in the lowest economic classes, this disparity and unhappiness is easy to sense. Rich and happy people rarely revolt, but the vast majority of revolutions can be traced back to an oppressed or forgotten poor economic class. Venezuelans as a nation have voluntarily and democratically chosen a slightly crazy communist with tyrannical tendencies as their president - in large part because of the disparity between the rich and the poor in that country. This puts the Bush economic plan, and much of the legislation of the current congress, into a rather bad, although not terrible, light. Although over all economic well-being, by the numbers, is good, most people don't feel it! And even those whose lives have improved feel less secure in their employment and financial health than in the 1990s. All of this is attributable to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, which our current government has exacerbated and, indeed, does not even consider to be a problem.
Pensions are dying. Even those that haven't completely died are mostly in trouble, and therefore paying less than originally promised. Most people face multiple career changes in today's world, and this usually isn't voluntary. I don't think that I have met any person born since 1975 who truly believes he or she will have a pension or enough social security. Rarely does a person work for one company for 20 years anymore. Plus, the nature of employment is changing. Full-time, salaried jobs with benefits are becoming more and more rare, while part-time jobs, temporary jobs, independent contracting, and personal businesses are becoming the norm. Many prefer this (I do!), however, the cost of this flexibility is a loss of financial safety and security, and a loss of company-paid benefits like health insurance. While this is happening, the president has been trying to move social security away from being a defined benefit plan, our whole government is ignoring the healthcare crisis, and most Americans are not bothering to get a financial education. Add Assumption Number Four to the previous assumptions, and it really looks like we are heading in the wrong direction.
These problems could mean the end of American global economic leadership. But many people have erroneously predicted the US's demise in the past. We tend to overcome our problems for the most part, although sometimes at a great cost and at the last possible moment. But all good things must come to an end, and all empires eventually crumble. Fortunately, democratic institutions and traditions, even if corrupt and neglected, tend to make such crises less bloody. So our decline, hopefully decades or centuries into the future, will most likely be gradual and nonlinear.
So what do I do? Well, I don't complain about high gas prices while driving my 10 miles/gallon SUV - I drive a four cylinder and bike or walk as much as possible. I do without the big screen television so I can invest and eventually retire in decent health, even if pensions, medicare, and social security become distant memories I tell my grandchildren. I vote with an eye towards these problems. In short, I try to save and invest like a rich Republican, but still hope for a more equitable American society. I still distrust Democrats, but see that the Republican Party has sold its soul - its former ideals of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and civil liberty. I will ensure that at least my children, and hopefully a few others, will be able to afford an education, and I will teach as many as possible about the advantages of starting early in saving for retirement and blessings such as a family and a home. We truly are entering an age of individual responsibility, and I think most Americans are unprepared.
The United States of America, sixty years ago, dropped two Weapons of Mass Destruction - "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" - on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing more than 200,000 civilians from the blasts alone. Was this necessary? Yes. Was this good or evil? If you think it good, then you are more cynical than me, or perhaps insane or evil yourself. In my mind, the only reasons - the only reasons - this terrible evil was justified was:
The opinions I am about to express should in no way be misconstrued to seem to indicate support for the immoral US invasion of Iraq. I have never had a darker moment or been more unsure of my allegiences than when we committed that injustice. But America, right or wrong. At least as long as it remains America, the democratic republic...
Recent polls indicate a growing disapproval with President Bush and the Iraq War. Well too bad, too sad. I have this to say to my fellow Americans - especially those that were once in favor of the Attack on Iraq. Finish what you start, and clean up your own messes. National defense is of utmost importance. And the next time a leader advocates unnecessary use of military force, remember the Iraq War. Remember that soldiers are trained to kill and willingly face death themselves. Wars mean that soldiers die - that's what war is, so make sure when you start a war that it is just. And remember that modern warfare means large numbers of civilian deaths - well over 11,000 in Iraq alone. In fact, I would say that it is never just to start a war. Lest you thank I'm some anti-military peacenik, I do think that a well trained and well equipped military is absolutely necessary for self defense, and that using that military when attacked with force is justified. But when men are reduced to killing each other, evil reigns. Never choose evil - be forced into it, when you have no other options.
The past sixty years or so have seen some big successes on the road to peace. Large number of nations, including former world military powers, have decided that it is safer to make peace than war, to concentrate their efforts on improving their economies and social institutions. It is my sincere belief that this was possible because the best and most powerful military in the world was in the hands of a moral people and government - the United States. The United States is probably the first nation in the history of the world with empire potential that has avoided becoming an empire, in large part because we are a democracy that still remembers our own struggle for independence from an empire. In fact, we aided and defended sovereign nations for much of our history without conquering them, including our former subjugator. Subjugation and civil liberty are mutually incompatible, thank God. But the world has started to doubt our intentions, and even to distrust us. Sure, we are a ways from disaster, but a good reputation is both difficult to build and easy to lose.
Victory in Iraq will have some benefits for us. A democratic Iraq will be a natural, though not necessarily obedient, ally in the middle east. Combined with a democratic Lebanon, change may eventually come to the Arab world. But don't think that democracy will make the Arab nations friends of the US. We're hardly friends with France and India, and they have been democracies for decades. And yet a democratic world is one that is less likely to go to war. This is a somewhat intangible benefit, and thus difficult to convey to the general American public. Nonetheless, it is a positive reason to seek success in Iraq. Foreign terrorists intent on stopping this move to democracy have been moving into Iraq, and after we defeated Hussein's regime, a second war began with them.
Why did the other cities of the Delian league abandon democratic Athens to destruction at the hands of the decidedly un-democratic Spartans? Athens did not treat them as equals, dictated their policies, and made itself rich off of them. How did Athens, the greatest military might, with one of the best navies ever until modern times, come to be defeated by Sparta? Well, Athens started an unnecessary war in Sicily, and through misfortune and poor decisions, squandered its navy (and the blood of its citizens) in unnecessary defeat.
Victory in Iraq is necessary for the long-term well being of our nation, and for the democratic world. Defeat in Vietnam taught the world, including our enemies, that if a democratic nation doesn't support a war, it can be defeated. That's why it is so incredibly important that we are careful how we use our military, and why we should be so careful who we put in power, so that they don't betray the American people by abusing military power. Defeat in Iraq will expose real weakness in America, not weakness of will - whether or not that weakness is real! (For many would argue that it wasn't even weakness of will that led to defeat in Vietnam, but that we were using military force to fight a popular ideology intertwined with nationalism in a foreign land.) When we held the moral high ground before 2003, the terrorists showed plenty of willingness to attack us at home and abroad, in many more incidents than just September 11, 2001. If we lose in Iraq, acknowledged by pulling out before Iraq is a safe, democratic nation, will this make the terrorists leave us alone? Don't bury your head in the sand. Terrorists, and most of the world, see America as the emblem of democracy. Terrorists, in particular, see the two as one. Even if they defeat America - which I still doubt is possible, but even Rome fell - even if they defeat America, will America be where they stop? I don't think so.
So let us pray that God will continue to bless us with that peculiar American ability to fall forward, to turn defeat into victory, injustice into greater liberty for all. Encourage your sons and daughters to defend our liberty. If you are of age and ability, and not a pacifist, join the military. And for the rest of your life, remember Iraq when you step into a voting booth.
Instead of updating this page yet again, I've moved the version from Spring 2005 to here for your reading pleasure. If you don't have the time to read that rather long and winding blog, I'll summarize: