On both the left and right sides of the political spectrum there are basically solid blocks of voters who are not going to be swayed one way or another. These probably represent about 20% of the electorate on either side. In the middle are maybe 60% of the voters who are the key to victory and are wooed with similar enticements, but different scapegoats.
The left views the poor as noble victims and the rich as unjust pillagers of the national wealth. They like to point out the unfairness of the wealth amassed through manipulation of markets and exploitation of the masses. They woo the middle by promising to reclaim this wealth as the rightful property of the middle class.
The right views the rich as inspiring creators of wealth whose riches are their reward for ingenuity, entrepreneurship and risk taking. They view the poor as leaches on society who prefer to sit at home living off the generosity of those who work for a living. The middle class is led to believe that everyone on government assistance is taking money out of their pockets, a practice which could be eliminated if the programs were eliminated, forcing the poor to find jobs.
In the end, the success of the sales job regarding these positions (in no small measure dependent upon the skill of the salesperson) determines the outcome of national elections. As it is, the middle class does produce the vast bulk of our national wealth, though how much would be possible without the risk-takers is subject to debate. They sit in the middle and watch the tug-of-war between the upper and lower classes. As they watch their tax dollars go into the seemingly bottomless pit of social programs, with little evidence of effectiveness, they begin to lean to the right. As they begin to see the creation of wealth and the attendant statistics showing that one group of people appears to be benefiting disproportionately, they will shift to the left.
In essence we have seen the shift to left with the election of Bill Clinton, though it must be noted that he was elected by promising to be a "new" Democrat, one who leaned much further to the right than his predecessors. As it is, if he turns out to be more liberal than advertised the swing back to the right could be accelerated, since it appears that a degree of conservatism in government is the preferred direction of the people.
3/29/1993
More Money Not Always the Solution
Whenever we are faced with a societal problem, the first solution suggested is more government spending (or investment as some prefer). Often the problems are blamed on insufficient or reduced government funding. Is more money the answer?
There is probably not a business, family or individual that does not believe that extra money would go a long way toward alleviating their difficulties, yet they cannot simply will it by decree, as can the government. Instead they must be resourceful in addressing their individual problems. This often leads to much more successful, sometimes breathtaking solutions.
For example, would GM be better off if they had easy access to billions of additional funds each year? Or, would they instead be more likely to be wasteful and slow in addressing the root causes of their deficiencies if they were not faced with financial ruin? Instead we require them to find ways to stop their losses through prudence and problem solving. This does not mean that money is not spent solving the problem, but it does mean that the dwindling dollars available for righting the situation must be more wisely allocated.
The government, however, does not force itself through this ritual. Instead of reallocating money, it simply adds to that which is already spent. As bureaucracies grow constituencies are created that provide a reason in and of themselves for their survival. As Bill Clinton aptly noted, every dollar spent by the government goes in some fashion into someone’s paycheck. While said altruistically, this demonstrates the self-perpetuating nature of government programs.
To assure wise investment and sound returns, we must find way to require accountability for results, rather than budgeting ability. Until we are able to do this we are doomed to inefficient spending and a dilution of our national wealth.
There is probably not a business, family or individual that does not believe that extra money would go a long way toward alleviating their difficulties, yet they cannot simply will it by decree, as can the government. Instead they must be resourceful in addressing their individual problems. This often leads to much more successful, sometimes breathtaking solutions.
For example, would GM be better off if they had easy access to billions of additional funds each year? Or, would they instead be more likely to be wasteful and slow in addressing the root causes of their deficiencies if they were not faced with financial ruin? Instead we require them to find ways to stop their losses through prudence and problem solving. This does not mean that money is not spent solving the problem, but it does mean that the dwindling dollars available for righting the situation must be more wisely allocated.
The government, however, does not force itself through this ritual. Instead of reallocating money, it simply adds to that which is already spent. As bureaucracies grow constituencies are created that provide a reason in and of themselves for their survival. As Bill Clinton aptly noted, every dollar spent by the government goes in some fashion into someone’s paycheck. While said altruistically, this demonstrates the self-perpetuating nature of government programs.
To assure wise investment and sound returns, we must find way to require accountability for results, rather than budgeting ability. Until we are able to do this we are doomed to inefficient spending and a dilution of our national wealth.
3/26/1993
Don't Confuse Compassion for Open-mindedness
There is a tendency to consider oneself open-minded if one believes in liberal causes. This is probably because one who believes in liberal causes considers themselves willing to make sacrifices for the good of others, which may be construed as being open-minded. This, however, is faulty logic.
Suppose a parent has a child who has a bone marrow deficiency which leaves the child's immune system seriously weakened. The child's doctors suggest several forms of treatment, ranging from immune stimulating therapy such as interferon to bone marrow transplants with the parents acting as donors. The parents are willing to do anything to save their child's life and therefore consider all options. After researching all possible avenues, they decide upon the immune therapy since this is determined to be least traumatic for the child while providing a good chance at recovery. This would be considered an informed, "open-minded" decision.
On the other hand, suppose the parent decided that the best way to help their child was to make the ultimate sacrifice of making a marrow donation, even if the doctors suggested this might not be the best course of treatment. Despite the doctor's urging the parents are convinced that they must take this step to assure their child's survival. The parents may consider themselves open-minded because only a supposedly open-minded person would consider making such a sacrifice. However, they are mistaking loving, caring and concern with objectivity, and in the process may be endangering the very life they hope to save.
The same may be true of any political belief, especially liberal ones, because they often are derived from the heart rather than logic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with caring and compassion unless they get in the way of objective reasoning, in which case more harm than good may be the result. It is interesting that pilots who find themselves in a tailspin are taught that letting go of the wheel may be the best way to let the plane regain control of itself. Likewise, it may be true that removing the governments hand from the wheel of control in our lives may be the best remedy as well. It is an option that needs to be considered as openly as any other.
Suppose a parent has a child who has a bone marrow deficiency which leaves the child's immune system seriously weakened. The child's doctors suggest several forms of treatment, ranging from immune stimulating therapy such as interferon to bone marrow transplants with the parents acting as donors. The parents are willing to do anything to save their child's life and therefore consider all options. After researching all possible avenues, they decide upon the immune therapy since this is determined to be least traumatic for the child while providing a good chance at recovery. This would be considered an informed, "open-minded" decision.
On the other hand, suppose the parent decided that the best way to help their child was to make the ultimate sacrifice of making a marrow donation, even if the doctors suggested this might not be the best course of treatment. Despite the doctor's urging the parents are convinced that they must take this step to assure their child's survival. The parents may consider themselves open-minded because only a supposedly open-minded person would consider making such a sacrifice. However, they are mistaking loving, caring and concern with objectivity, and in the process may be endangering the very life they hope to save.
The same may be true of any political belief, especially liberal ones, because they often are derived from the heart rather than logic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with caring and compassion unless they get in the way of objective reasoning, in which case more harm than good may be the result. It is interesting that pilots who find themselves in a tailspin are taught that letting go of the wheel may be the best way to let the plane regain control of itself. Likewise, it may be true that removing the governments hand from the wheel of control in our lives may be the best remedy as well. It is an option that needs to be considered as openly as any other.
3/23/1993
Why the President Should Fear the Press
In defending Bill Clinton's avoidance of formal press conferences thus far in his presidency, Jeff Greenfield claims it does not matter because the press has already determined that the president's proposals will not reduce the deficit as much as he claims, will hit the middle class harder than he claims, and does not attack "government as usual" as he claims.
This assumes that the public, 1) reads and listens to everything the media reports, and 2) that the public believes the media as much as it believes the President of the United States. For better or for worse this is simply not true. Many people do not read the paper, or go no further than Sports, Entertainment and headlines. For all the media would like to believe that they are the purveyors of truth, it matters little if their words go unnoticed.
Bill Clinton is wise to avoid formal press conferences because he does not want knowledgeable, pointed questions regarding the weaknesses and contradictions in his plan. He knows that nothing would damage his credibility more than sound bites showing him on the defensive about specific proposals. This tactic may be best for his plan's passage, but not necessarily best for democracy.
This assumes that the public, 1) reads and listens to everything the media reports, and 2) that the public believes the media as much as it believes the President of the United States. For better or for worse this is simply not true. Many people do not read the paper, or go no further than Sports, Entertainment and headlines. For all the media would like to believe that they are the purveyors of truth, it matters little if their words go unnoticed.
Bill Clinton is wise to avoid formal press conferences because he does not want knowledgeable, pointed questions regarding the weaknesses and contradictions in his plan. He knows that nothing would damage his credibility more than sound bites showing him on the defensive about specific proposals. This tactic may be best for his plan's passage, but not necessarily best for democracy.
3/22/1993
Causation or Merely Correlation?
Many look to the eighties as the time of American decline, but if we look at it, our moral decline began in the sixties, followed by declines in our economic standing. We also saw increased violence, illegitimate births, drug use, unemployment and declining productivity.
Given our propensity to assign causality to certain events, what could be the blame for the above. Many would blame the Great Society programs which institutionalized poverty and government dependence, while providing disincentives to work. Others would blame the Vietnam war which divided the country and caused many children of the post World War II baby boom generation to shun the institutions held dear by their parents. Others would blame the drug culture, or racial injustice. Many would blame a confluence of all these.
I, however, place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Surgeon General and his 1964 report on the dangers of cigarette smoking. Is it coincidence that stress began to build, some of which vented itself in student protests and urban riots? Or that the divorce rate began to rise dramatically as spouses no longer could take solace in a peaceful smoke, but instead had to face each other without the pleasure of guilt-free nicotine? What was the impact on productivity as employees trying to kick the habit began making errors because of the concentration impairment from nicotine withdrawal. Could the dramatic increase in out -of-wedlock births be due to the substitution of sex for cigarettes as the preferred statement of the passage into adulthood? Seeking a substitute for nicotine, could some have turned to more serious drugs, leading to a life of crime to support these new habits?
As can be seen, all of our problems are tied directly to the guilt, frustration and stress caused by smoking and the on-going attempts to quit. Cigarettes are the answer to all of our problems. Encourage everyone to light up, send congress home and all will be fine. Of course, maybe the answer lies in higher energy taxes. Maybe I should think all this through a little better. I'll get back to you.
Given our propensity to assign causality to certain events, what could be the blame for the above. Many would blame the Great Society programs which institutionalized poverty and government dependence, while providing disincentives to work. Others would blame the Vietnam war which divided the country and caused many children of the post World War II baby boom generation to shun the institutions held dear by their parents. Others would blame the drug culture, or racial injustice. Many would blame a confluence of all these.
I, however, place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Surgeon General and his 1964 report on the dangers of cigarette smoking. Is it coincidence that stress began to build, some of which vented itself in student protests and urban riots? Or that the divorce rate began to rise dramatically as spouses no longer could take solace in a peaceful smoke, but instead had to face each other without the pleasure of guilt-free nicotine? What was the impact on productivity as employees trying to kick the habit began making errors because of the concentration impairment from nicotine withdrawal. Could the dramatic increase in out -of-wedlock births be due to the substitution of sex for cigarettes as the preferred statement of the passage into adulthood? Seeking a substitute for nicotine, could some have turned to more serious drugs, leading to a life of crime to support these new habits?
As can be seen, all of our problems are tied directly to the guilt, frustration and stress caused by smoking and the on-going attempts to quit. Cigarettes are the answer to all of our problems. Encourage everyone to light up, send congress home and all will be fine. Of course, maybe the answer lies in higher energy taxes. Maybe I should think all this through a little better. I'll get back to you.
3/15/1993
If We're Really Serious About the Deficit
Despite the belief that we are about to take courageous steps to cut our budget deficits, it really is simply business as usual. Consider that the steps called for include significantly higher taxes on the wealthy, higher taxes on corporations, higher taxes on social security benfits (cynically refered to as budget cuts) and a broad based energy tax that will affect virtually everyone. The budget cuts consist almost entirely of reduced defense spending. If we are serious about cutting spending, let us consider the following:
After all of this is accomplished, cut the administrative budgets of all departments 25% across the board. I assure you that the government can cut this and not move any slower than it does now. President Clinton may consider line item veto's of certain obvious pork projects. The U.S. constitution states that the president must approve all bills and resolutions of the Congress for them to become law. Test it in the Supreme Court. If the projects are wisely chosen, even if the Supreme Court rejects this ploy, congress' hand may be forced to reconsider the line item veto. Consider their options in such a case: Fight to retain obvious and politically foolish pork, back down or change the law. The outcome would be interesting.
All in all, we are facing certain increases in taxes and what appears to be net increases in spending. This certainly does not appear to be new or different. the only "change" I can discern is that the tax and spend policies of Carter, Mondale and Dukakis are now being sold by a highly polished and charismatic salesman. I hope we are not being sold down the river.
- Eliminate the Department of Education - 30,000 bureaucrats in Washington are never going to be the answer to our education problems, especially since effective education is managed locally.
- Roll the Department of Veterans Affairs into Health and Human Services. Creation of the DVA was strictly a political stroke to veterans from George Bush.
- Combine the Departments of Energy and the Interior into a single Department of Natural Resources.
- Eliminate the separate air wings of the Navy, Army and Marines; or eliminate the Air Force as a separate branch of the military.
- Eliminate all tobacco subsidies.
- Eliminate most farm subsidies. It is foolish to pay farmers not to produce, then turn around and provide food stamps to the poor to pay for food at government subsidized higher prices.
- Eliminate the Space Station and Super Colliding Super Conductor.
- Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the national Endowment for the Humanities. Both are nice to have, but cannot be justified in times of budgetary crisis.
After all of this is accomplished, cut the administrative budgets of all departments 25% across the board. I assure you that the government can cut this and not move any slower than it does now. President Clinton may consider line item veto's of certain obvious pork projects. The U.S. constitution states that the president must approve all bills and resolutions of the Congress for them to become law. Test it in the Supreme Court. If the projects are wisely chosen, even if the Supreme Court rejects this ploy, congress' hand may be forced to reconsider the line item veto. Consider their options in such a case: Fight to retain obvious and politically foolish pork, back down or change the law. The outcome would be interesting.
All in all, we are facing certain increases in taxes and what appears to be net increases in spending. This certainly does not appear to be new or different. the only "change" I can discern is that the tax and spend policies of Carter, Mondale and Dukakis are now being sold by a highly polished and charismatic salesman. I hope we are not being sold down the river.
2/21/1993
Bill Clinton's Risky Budget Plan
Like many Americans, I was quite impressed with President Clinton's proposals in his State of the Union speech. Reducing the deficit is crucial to our long-term economic health. Yet careful reading of the text of his address, put into context with his overall belief in the ability of government to solve all of our woes, lead me to believe that this program in its final form will do much more harm than good, especially to the middle class he purports to help.
In fact, the middle class will end up bearing the brunt of the financial cost of the new taxes as the cost of goods and services rise to offset the higher energy costs. In addition to the estimated direct cost of $17 monthly, a typical family with take home pay of $500 per week would see additional indirect costs of about $20 per month for every 1% increase in the inflation rate. If inflation exceeds 10% as it did in the late seventies, this program could wind up costing the average middle class family in excess of $1,500 annually.
On the spending side, only $5 billion of Mr. Clinton's $73 billion in annual spending cuts are scheduled for the first two years of his plan. I doubt that we will ever see these cuts. Beyond that he has called for $30 billion in short- term stimulus, $27 billion to increase the Earned Income Credit over five years, $13.8 billion for Head Start and $3.6 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program, not to mention his yet to be unveiled health care plan.
Mr. Clinton's proposals are bold, but I am afraid misguided. Instead of real deficit reduction, we will see increased spending and risky tax increases. Instead of a growing economy, the only things likely to grow are government, taxes, prices and eventually unemployment lines. If we are truly concerned about reducing the deficit and fixing our economy, the public should demand spending cuts first, taxes later.
In fact, the middle class will end up bearing the brunt of the financial cost of the new taxes as the cost of goods and services rise to offset the higher energy costs. In addition to the estimated direct cost of $17 monthly, a typical family with take home pay of $500 per week would see additional indirect costs of about $20 per month for every 1% increase in the inflation rate. If inflation exceeds 10% as it did in the late seventies, this program could wind up costing the average middle class family in excess of $1,500 annually.
On the spending side, only $5 billion of Mr. Clinton's $73 billion in annual spending cuts are scheduled for the first two years of his plan. I doubt that we will ever see these cuts. Beyond that he has called for $30 billion in short- term stimulus, $27 billion to increase the Earned Income Credit over five years, $13.8 billion for Head Start and $3.6 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program, not to mention his yet to be unveiled health care plan.
Mr. Clinton's proposals are bold, but I am afraid misguided. Instead of real deficit reduction, we will see increased spending and risky tax increases. Instead of a growing economy, the only things likely to grow are government, taxes, prices and eventually unemployment lines. If we are truly concerned about reducing the deficit and fixing our economy, the public should demand spending cuts first, taxes later.
7/27/1992
A Flat Tax Can Be Both Fair and Progressive
There are three reasons we should consider a flat tax:
1) It is simple - How much time have you spent filling out your Social Security returns? None. Why? Because it is a simple flat tax.
2) It doesn't require significant collection efforts. Sales taxes require a fair amount of paperwork by the collector (i.e. retailer) to report and remit. Plus, depending on what is exempted, it could be very complicated and prone to abuse and fraud.
3) It can be as fair or progressive as we want it to be. Consider these two scenarios.
A 10% tax on everything over $25,000:
A person making $25,000 or less would pay no tax
A person making $50,000 would pay $2,500 (10% of $25,000) or 5% of their total pay.
A person making $100,000 would pay $7,500 or 7.5%
A person making $1,000,000 would pay $97,500 or 9.75%
A 20% tax on everything over $50,000:
A person making $50,000 or less pays nothing.
A person making $100,000 pays $10,000 or 10%
A person making $1,000,000 pays $190,000 or 19%
As you can see, we can set the rate and the exempted amount wherever we would want to get the effective rate desired for various income levels. In example 2 above, the person making $1,000,000 makes ten times the person making $100,000, but pays 19 times more in taxes. Still, he pays no more on each incremental dollar than anyone else. It achieves both progressivity and fairness.
1) It is simple - How much time have you spent filling out your Social Security returns? None. Why? Because it is a simple flat tax.
2) It doesn't require significant collection efforts. Sales taxes require a fair amount of paperwork by the collector (i.e. retailer) to report and remit. Plus, depending on what is exempted, it could be very complicated and prone to abuse and fraud.
3) It can be as fair or progressive as we want it to be. Consider these two scenarios.
A 10% tax on everything over $25,000:
A person making $25,000 or less would pay no tax
A person making $50,000 would pay $2,500 (10% of $25,000) or 5% of their total pay.
A person making $100,000 would pay $7,500 or 7.5%
A person making $1,000,000 would pay $97,500 or 9.75%
A 20% tax on everything over $50,000:
A person making $50,000 or less pays nothing.
A person making $100,000 pays $10,000 or 10%
A person making $1,000,000 pays $190,000 or 19%
As you can see, we can set the rate and the exempted amount wherever we would want to get the effective rate desired for various income levels. In example 2 above, the person making $1,000,000 makes ten times the person making $100,000, but pays 19 times more in taxes. Still, he pays no more on each incremental dollar than anyone else. It achieves both progressivity and fairness.
7/21/1992
Good Intentions, Not Such Good Outcomes
With the recent outcry for change in this country, I have been contemplating some of the change that has been called for in recent years. This has included elimination of tax shelters for the wealthy, increased taxes (including luxury taxes) to reduce the deficit, an increase in the minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, reductions in military spending, a new civil rights bill, anti-discrimination laws to protect Americans with disabilities and more stringent laws to protect workers and the environment.
Interestingly, each of these proposals, representing a liberal or populist point of view, were enacted. Now we find ourselves in a protracted recession, yet we believe the solution to these problems is to follow the Democrats further down the primrose path of populist policies.
Consider the effects that some of the policies above have had on our economy. The elimination of tax shelters, one of the great populist policies of the past decade, led to a tremendous drop in real estate investment. In turn prices fell, greatly excacerbating the S&L mess. The luxury tax on cars and boats led to mass layoffs in those industries. The reduction in military spending, while promising to be beneficial in the long run as production switches to wealth creating industries, has in the short term displaced thousands of workers. The civil rights bill and to an even geater degree the Americans with Disabilies Act, while certainly necessary, will hamper our global competitveness as businesses try to absorb the economic impact of these laws.
The Clean Air Act and efforts by OSHA to protect workers are also placing increased burdens on business at a time when they can least afford it. A perfect example is a requirement by OSHA that drycleaners meet stingent exposure limits for solvent vapors within their operations. The deadline, which is rapidly approaching, will require many operators to make major investments in new equipment to meet the new guidelines. Most of those affected are older family operations. Rather than making the investment, many are choosing to retire. Unfortunately, because of the increased regulation, the value of their businesses are next to nothing. As a result the nest egg they were counting on for retirement has been wiped out, forcing them to live on social security and putting a further drag on our social services. And this represents just an infinitismal portion of our vast economy.
As for the minimum wage, we can never raise it enough to provide more than a subsistence wage. Whenever it is raised significantly, employment will eventually drop and prices will rise, making the new wage no better than the old one. The answer is to provide the education, motivation and training so that our work force can excel in higher value added, hence higher wage, employment. We can then let the truly low wage, low value jobs migrate overseas.
Much is made of the unfairness of a system where many become wealthy while others cannot find employment. Yet wealth and employment are inextricably linked. Put in an unusual way, if each employee generates an annual profit of $1,000 for his employer, would you rather the employer earn $5,000 or $500,000 each year. In one case you have five employees, in the other five hundred. Rather than look at the employment however, we look at the profit and consider it unfair. In turn, we look to tax the profit, taking it from productive investment and placing it in he government's trust, one of the least productive investments we can make. The end result is less private employment and more government dependence.
This country has great problems, but we have even greater potential. By providing education, motivation and hope to our underprivileged we can eliminate the scourge of drugs and crime in our communities. Each time a person is
turned from a government dependant to a productive member of society, our spending needs drop and our revenue increases. Outside of education, the government cannot encourage this effectively. Government cannot make a poor person wealthy, nor even comfortable.
Interestingly, each of these proposals, representing a liberal or populist point of view, were enacted. Now we find ourselves in a protracted recession, yet we believe the solution to these problems is to follow the Democrats further down the primrose path of populist policies.
Consider the effects that some of the policies above have had on our economy. The elimination of tax shelters, one of the great populist policies of the past decade, led to a tremendous drop in real estate investment. In turn prices fell, greatly excacerbating the S&L mess. The luxury tax on cars and boats led to mass layoffs in those industries. The reduction in military spending, while promising to be beneficial in the long run as production switches to wealth creating industries, has in the short term displaced thousands of workers. The civil rights bill and to an even geater degree the Americans with Disabilies Act, while certainly necessary, will hamper our global competitveness as businesses try to absorb the economic impact of these laws.
The Clean Air Act and efforts by OSHA to protect workers are also placing increased burdens on business at a time when they can least afford it. A perfect example is a requirement by OSHA that drycleaners meet stingent exposure limits for solvent vapors within their operations. The deadline, which is rapidly approaching, will require many operators to make major investments in new equipment to meet the new guidelines. Most of those affected are older family operations. Rather than making the investment, many are choosing to retire. Unfortunately, because of the increased regulation, the value of their businesses are next to nothing. As a result the nest egg they were counting on for retirement has been wiped out, forcing them to live on social security and putting a further drag on our social services. And this represents just an infinitismal portion of our vast economy.
As for the minimum wage, we can never raise it enough to provide more than a subsistence wage. Whenever it is raised significantly, employment will eventually drop and prices will rise, making the new wage no better than the old one. The answer is to provide the education, motivation and training so that our work force can excel in higher value added, hence higher wage, employment. We can then let the truly low wage, low value jobs migrate overseas.
Much is made of the unfairness of a system where many become wealthy while others cannot find employment. Yet wealth and employment are inextricably linked. Put in an unusual way, if each employee generates an annual profit of $1,000 for his employer, would you rather the employer earn $5,000 or $500,000 each year. In one case you have five employees, in the other five hundred. Rather than look at the employment however, we look at the profit and consider it unfair. In turn, we look to tax the profit, taking it from productive investment and placing it in he government's trust, one of the least productive investments we can make. The end result is less private employment and more government dependence.
This country has great problems, but we have even greater potential. By providing education, motivation and hope to our underprivileged we can eliminate the scourge of drugs and crime in our communities. Each time a person is
turned from a government dependant to a productive member of society, our spending needs drop and our revenue increases. Outside of education, the government cannot encourage this effectively. Government cannot make a poor person wealthy, nor even comfortable.
8/01/1991
Journal Entries 1989 - 1990
May 5, 1988
Is abortion murder? If someone feels abortion is wrong, then shouldn't their choice be not to have one, or do they have a moral obligation to prevent others from having one also? If so, how far does that moral linkage stretch? To family members, their state, the nation, the world? In other words, will God punish us for not doing all we can to stop as many abortions as possible? If so, should we pursue this course to the exclusion of all else or will God treat each abortionist or abortionee individually?
If we do allow abortion, does that cheapen life, making euthanasia of the sick, the elderly or the inconvenient easier?
The argument that makes me sick is the economic one, particularly among middle class people who opt for a microwave, a VCR or a later model car versus a third child. If all the effort expended on both sides of the argument were to be focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies, more abortions would be prevented than any law that could be enacted, which brings me to the pro-choice argument for reproductive freedom. What about prophylaxis and contraception? Or are they incapable of proactive thought and simply capable of reactive correction? I give them more credit than that.
May 6, 1989
Visited Plaza Frontenac (a high-end shopping center) today. No matter how wealthy I may become, I never want to be like these people. They should be made to drive around North Saint Louis to see how some people live. What's sad is that if these people are conservative, they feel that the plight of the poor is the fault of the poor so "don't ask me to help," while if they're liberal, they say, "take a percentage of my pay in taxes to help them so I can sleep with a clear conscience." I'm sorry, but neither approach is correct, nor sufficient, I know I'm guilty of not doing my part, but admitting so does not absolve me of said guilt. What do we do to resolve the situation in the inner city?
May 7, 1989
Pundits wonder why we split our vote, resulting in a republican president, but a democratic congress, the reason is simple - Democrats promise jobs, programs and contracts to their constituents (more than their share of the pie, so to speak). Republicans promise to keep a lid on such giveaways. Hence, people vote to get their goodies from congress, but send a Republican to the White House to make sure the rest of the country doesn't get theirs.
May 8, 1989
If politicians and sociologists want to address our problems, they must stop dealing strictly in absolutes, particularly as they pertain to groups of people. Instead, they must realize that behavior is spread along a bell curve from one extreme to another. For example, economically, people are motivated to different degrees. Some are simply driven to succeed no matter what the payoff, while others could not care less about success so long as they get their sustenance. The vast majority of people lie somewhere in between. By the same token, some people will be enticed to remain home with a very simple subsidy., i.e., welfare, while others will require larger subsidies in order to give up their occupations. A graphic representation of this phenomenon would be as follows. The number of people who would quit on the y- axis and the amount of the Subsidy on the x-axis. The graph shows a standard bell curve, with fat tails at both ends.
Obviously, unemployment becomes more attractive to greater numbers, as the dole grows larger as people leave their jobs however, output shrinks accordingly, leaving more dollars chasing after fewer goods. The resulting inflation will reduce the purchasing power of the government subsidies, forcing people to go back to work or demand a greater Subsidy from the government. Given the growth in dependence on, not to mention expectation of, government support, this second scenario seems very likely.
What this example also points out is that government handouts do not improve the lot of the lower class, but simply encourage reduced total output (GNP),thereby reducing the total material wealth of the general population.
The key is to provide opportunity, education and motivation to work (hence produce) while sustaining those who can't work without enticing workers to leave their jobs.
The scenario painted above (rising unemployment and inflation) defines stagflation, much like we had throughout the 70s. Part of this was due to shocks and commodity markets (Oils, minerals and such), but is it not possible that part would be attributed to the Subsidy phenomena.
To give credence to Subsidy Theory, let's look at agriculture with various government subsidies given to farmers to reduce production, why do some farmers continue to produce? Some do so because they can make more by producing than by accepting government handouts. Others will produce simply because they feel obligated to do so. The net result of the subsidies, however (the stated goal in fact), is reduced output and higher prices. Is it not safe to assume that public welfare would have the same net result, though the stated goal is to help those in need? In reality, we are subsidizing reduced output, and hence higher prices. This explains why. Market principles, free of government intervention will create the greatest national wealth. It is then incumbent upon management to see that this wealth is distributed fairly, according to each person's ability, not each person's needs - the direct opposite of Marx. It is only when management is derelict in this duty or in providing unfair or unsafe work conditions that labor unions become a necessity. I am sure that I will be using bell curve phenomenon to describe other events as we fill these pages.
May 8, 1989
May 10, 1989
1) the reason our courts have resorted to legislating from the bench is that our elected legislators Congress have become too politically afraid cowardly to do so. 2) If Congress truly felt it $,89500 per year is too little to attract an able Congress, then that must mean the Congress we have is inept 3) On the other hand, if the public truly believes you get what you pay for and that we are not paying enough to get a qualified Congress, then why did we re-elect 98% of the incumbents running for re-election? 4 ) Tying each of these 3 points together, If Congress is afraid to make tough choices for fear of losing their seat, then they must feel their pay is good. I say cut their pay so that losing their seat will not be as traumatic, making it more likely that they will make the tough choices. This may also result in the election of people truly attracted for the good of public service.
May 11, 1989
GM just introduced the Lumina line of cars, admitting in print that they may not excite you, but that's okay, because they did not want to alienate people who might think it's ugly. That is exactly why they are losing market.share - people want a car that turns heads
5/17/89
Nearly one million people protested in Beijing today during Gorbachev's visit there. Several thoughts on the situation. One, the students claim to want greater democracy but appear to have little concept of what that actually means. Two, what the really appear to want is greater equality (in relation to government leaders), as well as greater freedom, but equality is inversely related to freedom. The best on can hope for is equality of opportunity if freedom is the real goal. Three, the protesters are spearheaded primarily by students which may parallel our own student movement of the sixties, which was marked by fragmented goals and self-limiting fervor due to the aging of the generation and the end of the Vietnam war. With China, trying to limit population growth, the fervor may die in the same manner. Four, without a clear understanding of democracy, how will the students know if they have achieved their goals? Five, why do we take such satisfaction in civil disobedience in other countries, yet treated it as an unpatriotic aberration when it happens here? Why can't we appreciate freedom of speech and expression of disagreement with the government, when we desire to claim the leadership and the fight for freedom?
5/17/89
Several universities are banning racial slurs on campus. I'm sorry, but as much as I detest racial bigotry. I cannot condone these actions. What is to prevent the banning of discussion of any sort regarding race in order to prevent possible discord? If the government suddenly prevented blacks from discussing or fighting racism in the name of racial harmony, all would be lost. It is talk that is most controversial which must be protected because other kinds are not challenged
Another point on racism: I feel that a distinction must be made between racial insensitivity and racial bigotry. The latter consists of true hatred, or at least a belief that the races are different. The former is a matter of oversight, Ignorance or even being so colorblind as not to notice certain insensitivities. The stadium spade work headline is such a case [sidenote: The St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a photo in May of 1989 showing a group of public officials performing a ceremonial groundbreaking using shovels. All were Black]. I truly believe that the Post-Dispatch did not put together the fact that the people in the picture were black with the headline. While it was unfortunate, it was not hateful, as some have claimed.
5/19/89
Besides the fact that heterosexual sex is less efficient in transmitting the aids virus, another reason that it has not spread in the heterosexual community is perhaps that our behavior was altered by the herpes scare, causing at least a reduction in the number of chancy encounters
Is modern medicine polluting our gene pool? Is it possible our evolution as a species has stopped, or at least slowed? In years gone by, most genetically-defective babies would have died, taking their genetic defects to the grave. Today, many of these children are saved and can reproduce passing their genetic makeup to their children. Is it possible that prenatal screening and abortion are god's attempt to reinstate the evolution of the human race? Just speculating.
5/24/89
"It is when people feel their country can do no wrong that their country is most able to do wrong."
6/24/89
Economists argue over the validity of supply-side economics and whether Reagan's tax cut resulted in supply or demand driven growth. By common supply and demand theories, these two types of growth can be easily differentiated. When supply decreases before demand (supply-side), the workforce will grow to produce the supply. Concurrently, prices will fall or inflation will slow because supply exceeds demand. By examining performance of the economy under Reagan, this appears to have happened.
When policies stimulate demand before supply can catch up, inflation will result, possibly even wiping out the increased demand before production can increase. This is the end result of monetary policies, which provide transfer payments without encouraging productivity improvements. While Reagan's tax cuts may have been demand inducing, his corporate tax breaks encouraging capital investment improved supply concurrently, preventing inflation. This, more than the budget deficits resulted in the unprecedented unbroken growth of the last six years.
The Supreme Court ruled that desecration of the flag is protected as freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Many groups (veterans etc.) are claiming the flag is too important to allow such activities. They fail to separate the flag from the rights it symbolizes. The flag is simply a piece of cloth. I find it scary that people are willing to sacrifice a fundamental right, one which makes this country great, in order to protect a mere symbol, a simple piece of cloth. When one considers it, the destruction of a red, white and blue piece of nylon would affect them not in the least. But preventing criticism of our country, even the least little bit, will begin to erode the rights we hold so dear. Then, when we fight under this banner, what would we be fighting for? It must be remembered that at the outset of the. Revolutionary war, our flag did not exist. Therefore, our founding fathers could not have been fighting for this flag, but for an ideal instead. It is the ideal, not the flag, which must be protected
6/27/89
George Bush has requested a constitutional amendment to prevent desecration of the flag. Is the point of this to stop desecration or increase the symbolic importance of the flag? By making it unconstitutional to desecrate the flag, we will make burning the flag not just a symbolic gesture against America, but instead, an actual defiance of the Constitution. This will make desecration even more symbolic and therefore more enticing to those looking for gestures against America. How will we deal with those who violate this constitutional amendment? If we do not deal harshly with them, would that not cheapen the entire Constitution? Ironically, attempting to protect the flag could actually do more to tatter the fabric of American democracy than any public flag burning could ever hope to achieve.
Another question. Since the Supreme Court upheld flag burning as a form of free speech wouldn't an amendment. To prohibit it, be an infringement upon the first amendment. Can a contradiction shut such as this be upheld or could an amendment itself be declared unconstitutional?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)