Why Conservatism Fails as a Social System

I'm reading a book by Friedrich Hayek written in 1944 called the The Road to Serfdom.

In his preface from 1956 Friedrich Hayek writes,

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege.

The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."

It's important to note that Friedrich Hayek's classical definition of liberalism maintains that freedom of the individual and limitations on government are paramount. I have no idea what the word liberal means in today's society - except that it's something that some Republicans and Conservatives know is scary and that they don't like it. I think we have confused ourselves with a lot of labels which serve to divide people who share common ideas - or at least common goals of continually creating a better civilization.

After The Bailout

I was listening to All Things Considered tonight and heard a funny story from from Romanian poet and novelist Andrei Codrescu

npr.org — For $700 billion, every able-bodied American could have a chain saw, a solar-powered generator and a stake in a communal well and windmill. Also, red dirt and plum trees.

The podcast of the story is at After The Bailout : NPR

John McCain and the Financial Crisis

I watched the Senate hearings of the Lehman Brothers and AIG executives yesterday on C-Span.

Here's a few tidbits -

• There are over 60 trillion dollars of paper bets aka credit default swaps floating around in the financial ether. Banks are afraid to loan money because no one knows what this stuff is worth.
  

• These "insurance like" exotic financial instruments were absolutely unregulated and turned into a huge casino for people who like to bet - they have nothing to do with investing.
  

• Prior to 2005, as this mess was unfolding, Congress tried to figure out a way to regulate these financial transactions even considering classifying them under existing gaming laws.

• One thing that was particularly interesting to me was the Republican/conservative philosophy of non-interference in the "free" market resulted in cutbacks at the SEC to the point that one person at the SEC was responsible for overseeing what turned into a giant international casino - run primarily in the AIG Financial Products division in London.
  

• There's a whole bunch of hogs at the trough but one particularly egregious example is the executive of the London branch of AIG Financial Products, who is currently receiving 1 million dollars a week as a consultant to what is now a government-owned business.

It's a mess.

So what does this have to do with John McCain?

John McCain is a fiscally irresponsible conservative who believes that keeping the government out of the free market is good policy. He's fiscally irresponsible, like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, because he a believes in the voodoo economic theory that you can promise to lower everyone's taxes (but really lower the taxes on the super rich) and not cut spending.

We have tax and spend liberals. We have no-tax and spend conservatives, who end up running up huge government deficits, and of course aren't conservative at all. You don't have to argue the theory - all you need to do is look at what this does in practice. Ronald Reagan left the country with the Savings and Loan bailout and huge deficits. George W. Bush will leave us over 10 trillion in debt and some yet to be determined number of taxpayer funded bailouts.

If you want to find a poster boy for complete deregulation it would be Phil Gramm - John McCain's economic mentor. You may recall Phil Gramm was John McCain's chief economic spokesman until he had to be kicked off the bus for calling American's whiners and saying we were in a mental recession.

It would be foolish to think John McCain somehow had a conversion of his policy positions just because he had to get Phil Gramm out of sight. We are talking about a core tenet of Republican's party - deregulation - keep the government out of the way of business.

The Columbia Journalism Review has a good article on John McCain's economic policy mentor - Phil Gramm. Here's a quote -

In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call ‘a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,’ the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.

There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services industry.

And did it ever.

__________________________________

Speaking of markets Intrade Prediction Markets has Barack leading McCain 76 to 24 this morning - so that market wasn't too impressed with the debate and the recent attempts by some to move the discourse into the gutter.

I don't think this election is over by a long shot - a lot can happen in the next 27 days. It's imperative that every young person, every new voter, every voter of any age - show up at the polls on November 4th for this referendum on the country's future.

Tax Cuts and Small Business

The next time you hear John McCain talk about extending the Bush "tax cuts" in order to help small businesses - it's useful to know what he means by a "small business".

The following information is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities article "The 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts and Small Business" by Robert Greenstein

"Small business" is meant to invoke visions of, risk-taking entrepreneurs who are involved in the hands-on management of their small firms. To some people, it calls to mind the corner grocery store owner or the local auto mechanic. To others, it suggests a start-up firm, such as a new business developing a new type of software."

"The tax cuts have indeed provided significant tax breaks to a small, elite group of households with some small-business income. But for the vast majority of such households, the tax cuts offer far more limited benefits, and the reductions in the top income tax rates offer no benefits at all."

"The Administration’s estimates count as a small business owner any tax unit that includes any income (or loss) from a sole proprietorship, farm proprietorship, partnership, S corporation, or rental income."

"This expansive definition suffers from two problems. First, it counts as tax cuts for small businesses billions of dollars in tax benefits that go to individuals whose businesses are not “small.” Second, it counts as tax cuts for small businesses tax benefits that go to wealthy individuals who are passive investors and have nothing to do with operating the business in question (and may never have set foot in it)."

"Using IRS data from 2003, the Joint Tax Committee showed that the Treasury definition of “small business” included 770,000 businesses with gross receipts of over $1 million and 86,000 companies with gross receipts of over $10 million. Businesses with gross receipts of more than $10 million accounted for about two thirds of the gross receipts of all partnerships and S corporations."

"The Treasury definition includes many wealthy individuals who are passive investors, not small-business proprietors. According to the Tax Policy Center, passive income from partnerships and S corporations accounted for some or all of the small-business income of 2.9 million tax filers who were termed “small-business owners” under the Treasury definition in 2004. For 850,000 of these filers, all of their “business income” came in this passive form."

"It is of particular note that the prevalence of passive business income increases at higher income levels. Passive investment income constituted all or part of the business income of about 9 percent of all households counted as small business owners under the Treasury definition. But about 35 percent of the “small-business owners” with incomes above $200,000, and about 58 percent of the “small-business owners” with incomes over $1 million, received some or all of their “business income” in this form."

"Small businesses typically evoke positive images in the public mind, and the Administration and other supporters of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have often sought to build support for these tax cuts by associating them with the small-business sector. Yet the benefits tax-cut supporters claim will flow to small businesses as a result of the tax cuts are greatly exaggerated. Few small businesses will see any benefit at all from the reduction in the top income-tax rates. Moreover, the distribution of the tax cuts as a whole among small businesses closely resembles their distribution among other households: by far the largest benefits flow to those with the highest incomes."

The Republican party's tax cuts as implemented by George W. Bush and now championed by John McCain place the burden on middle class taxpayers, while giving tax breaks to the ultra rich - many of whom have nothing to do with producing goods or services or employing people.

Making News With The Echo Chamber

The Fox News program Hannity's America dedicated Sunday night's show to smearing Barack Obama. The guest that night was Andy Martin, who was billed as a "a conservative writer and frequent political candidate". Quotes from the show ended up in the New York Times, and of course will be picked up by various other newspapers and blogs.

As with any information you have to consider the source.

Who is Andy Martin and would he be considered a reliable source of information?

"A news story out of the New Times Broward-Palm Beach written July 31, 2003 said this of Martin:

Martin, of course, is mad. Quite mad. He's an enigma wrapped in a riddle who probably should be wrapped in a straitjacket. The would-be senator is one of the most prolific and compulsive lawsuit filers in the United States, a first-class shadow-dwelling fugitive from justice, and a perennial also-ran political candidate whose stance on the issues has changed about as often as Michael Jackson's proboscis.

The Illinois Supreme Court, refused to admit him to the bar, pointing to a military psychiatric exam that allegedly found him to have personality defects that include delusions involving both paranoia and grandeur.

In his ‘92 bid for Senate he report $1,060 in contributions $500 of which came from his mom. The only contributions ever reported to the FEC."

Source - 2004 - US Senate Race - Andy Martin History

The following information comes from TPMCafe -

According to no less a source than the Unification Church's impeccably right-wing Washington Times of December 22, 1999:

In 1986, when Mr. Martin ran as a Democrat for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District seat under the name "Anthony R. Martin-Trigona," his campaign committee filed papers saying its purpose was to "exterminate Jew power in America and impeach U.S. District Court of Appeals judges in New York City."

The Washington Times' reporter, Ralph Z. Hallow, went on to say: "a Connecticut federal judge finally barred him from filing any more federal lawsuits without permission. The judge said Mr. Martin has pursued legal actions with 'persistence, viciousness, and general disregard for decency and logic.'"

Hallow went on:

In a New York bankruptcy case, he referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew." During the bankruptcy dispute, he filed a civil-rights lawsuit claiming Jewish bankruptcy judges and lawyers were conspiring to steal his property. He asked a court to bar "any Jew from having anything to do with plaintiff's property."

In another motion in the case, he wrote: "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did, when Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property."

For Fox News to put Andy Martin on the air and call him a "conservative writer and frequent political candidate" is the journalistic equivalent of writing a story, quoting some insane idea from Iran's president Ahmadinejad, and then attributing the quote to "a high ranking political official".

Allowing Andy Martin and his sidekick Sean Hannity to spew hate on Fox News is unconscionable of course - but unfortunately this sort of thing appeals to some segment of our population, and Fox News puts making money above ethics.

Giving Every Child a Chance to Excel

I am lucky to have had, and have, some great teachers in my life. My wife is a pre-school teacher, my grandmother was a remedial reading teacher, and my daughter is a student teacher who will become a teacher in a few months. Education is our future, it's how people get ahead, learn to help others and get along. Individuals who become teachers do so because they care about people and want to help them succeed.

I've been in a variety of classes/seminars where people are asked to name the most important person in their life and very often they will name a teacher who helped them at some critical stage of their development. I can't think of any more important job than a teacher who is in a position to make a difference in a child's life, at a point where it can make a huge difference for that child's future.

Barack Obama not only has a cool looking website at BarackTV, with license plates that link to videos from New Hampshire, Texas, Iowa and Pennsylvania - but more importantly he has continued to address and articulate clear plans for achieving the goals people care about.

In this video he talks about education and shows his grasp of the issues - including early childhood education, teacher pay, art and music education, math and science education, and helping people afford to go to college. He's clear headed about it and says he knows not everyone will excel, and it's not the job of government to make that happen - but as Americans we all need to work together to create a world class educational system that gives every child a chance to excel.

When Did Agreeing With Someone Become a Bad Thing?

In the first presidential debate Barack Obama said he agreed with John McCain. Somehow saying you share common ground with someone is viewed as a liability in this John McCain ad.

The idea that it's "us" versus "them" and "they are bad" doesn't help when we need to work together to make America a better place. There are good ideas, not so good ideas and just plain bad ideas - that's what the campaign should be about.

If John McCain and Sarah Palin can convince the American people that they have a better plan then they will be elected. If their campaign devolves to the point where all they can do is make personal attacks by rehashing already asked and answered questions supposedly having to do with character, it shows they've given up trying to convince the American people that their plan is better than what Barack Obama and Joe Biden have proposed.

Speeches attacking a person's character will continue to create a backlash of people who say, "not this time" which will hasten the already sharp decline of John McCain and Sarah Palin's poll numbers.

We waste our democratic freedom by allowing political discourse to move away from ideas and into personal attacks.

Small people talk about people, leaders talk about ideas.

Obama Momentum

Intrade Prediction Markets has Obama up by 33 points over McCain today, but the race is far from over since nobody knows what strange things may happen over the next 32 days until the election.

People are predicating McCain's next Hail Mary campaign stunts at Slate Magazine.

The U.K. Times Online reports that a McCain insider said, a pre-election wedding of Bristol and Levi "..would be fantastic, you'd have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."

There will be lots of ads but I don't know if those have nearly as much power as the general trend across all media, that McCain is not the right person for the job. It's not over til it's over, and there are a couple of debates to go. I'll wait until late on November 4th or November 5th to either celebrate the beginning of a new era in American politics....or wonder what the heck people were thinking.

One and a Half Hours That Won't Matter

I didn't get to watch the debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin but I listened to it on the radio. I have to give Sarah Palin credit for doing her best to stand by her maverick.

She can talk better than the interviews on ABC and CBS indicated. She seems best at broad generalities and did a good job of answering whatever question she felt she could answer - rather than always answering the questions being asked. Nothing new about a politician doing that.

I'd say she did well all things considered. She has some grit. I think she should be proud of her performance given the daunting task she was faced with, and the shock she must feel having been plucked from Alaska and thrust into a national election only a little over a month ago.

I think she was getting in some deep water when she said she thinks there is some constitutional flexibility that would allow her to expand the role of the vice president similar to what Dick Cheney has done - and that she agreed with Dick Cheney that the executive branch does not hold complete sway over the vice president. Not sure what that was about but it probably scares the hell out of a lot of people.

Cheney's record, and his claim that he is not part of, or answerable to, either the legislative or executive branch of government - or the American people - makes him a bad choice as Sarah's role model.

Joe Biden when asked his view on "Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency" reminded us that Dick Cheney is probably the "most dangerous Vice President we've had in American history". Joe Biden cited Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution as clearly limiting a vice president's duties relative to Congress.

For people who like a simple sound-bite view she probably holds some appeal. The simple pictures she paints and the complexities of reality are not always in close connection, so they don't have much appeal for people encumbered by the thought process.

Waving a white flag of surrender in Iraq might be a vivid visual picture but it degrades the complexity of what is going on there and how we will bring our soldiers home. Talking about a government that's for the little guy and doing things to help families sounds good until she brings up Ronald Reagan as an example. Being seventeen years old when Ronald Reagan took office she may not be aware of the impact his policies had on unions and working class Americans.

I thought Joe Biden countered every talking point she made with a viable logical alternatives and made a particularly good point when he said if you don't accept the science on global warming it's hard to come up with a solution. One thing about that old Joe is you can't out six-pack him - for every mainstreet, hometown, family reference Sarah has - Joe has his own. I was a bit surprised that he spends a lot of time at Home Depot - maybe he's drinking free coffee back in the lumber section or something.

The best point in the debate for me was at the very end when Joe Biden brought up Mike Mansfield. You have to be my age or older to know who he was - but having been raised in Montana that reference made me feel good.

Mike Mansfield was the senate majority leader from 1961 until 1977. He left home before he graduated from the 8th grade and served in the Navy, the Army and the Marines. He worked in the Butte mines and went on to get his Bachelor's degree at Montana, Masters at UCLA, and become a professor at the University of Montana. One of his most memorable acts while in the senate was introducing, and helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After he retired from the Senate he was named Ambassador to Japan. He was a liberal democrat and a leader that people in Montana, and the nation, looked up to and remember with a great deal of respect.

_______________________________

Postscript October 3, 2008 - I'm glad to see the New York Times picked up on Sarah Palin's suggestion that Dick Cheney would be her role model.

Why I Wouldn't Vote For Myself

Groucho Marx and later Woody Allen both said, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

That's how I feel when the VP candidate says she's just a regular old Joe six-pack who thinks it's time for one of us Joe six-packs to become vice-president.

I consider myself a Joe six-pack, but I don't want somebody like me to be president or vice-president.

I want somebody who understands history, reads newspapers and magazines, can name and talk about Supreme Court cases they feel strongly about, someone who knows more than I do about politics, the world and the people in it - someone who is smarter than I am.

I want someone who can speak well and articulate ideas using good diction. I want someone who has enough knowledge in a wide variety of areas, to be able to hold their own when surrounded by people who want to tell them how to think.

I want someone who can move beyond partisan bickering, blaming and name calling - and help foster the free exchange of ideas between conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans so we can work together to develop policies that are best for our country.

I want someone who knew they wanted to be a political leader and did the prerequisite things to prepare - years in advance....not a cram session 3 days before a debate.

In America, any child can grow up to be president, but we don't just pick some regular old Joe six-pack and stick them next in line to be president.

This is the quote from Sarah Palin's radio interview, full transcript at Townhall.com::Blog:

"Oh, I think they’re just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It’s time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that’s kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it, but it’s motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe six-pack like me, and we start doing those things that are expected of our government, and we get rid of corruption, and we commit to the reform that is not only desired, but is deserved by Americans."

I suppose there are people who are "out of sorts and ticked off" that John McCain would be so reckless as to choose six pack Sarah as a running mate. The upside is the chance that he will win the election is getting less likely every day.

All of em and Any of em

Sarah Palin either doesn't read any newspapers or magazines - or she can't name any that she does read, for fear of alienating supporters who believe the media is controlled by a bunch of liberals - who keep insisting freedom of the press means presenting more than one point of view.

Just for comparison purposes -

Our current president George Bush doesn't read newspapers either.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the other hand is said to have read six newspapers while he ate breakfast -

"President Kennedy worked long hours, getting up at seven and not going to bed until eleven or twelve at night, or later. He read six newspapers while he ate breakfast, had meetings with important people throughout the day, and read reports from his advisers. He wanted to make sure that he made the best decisions for his country."

Thought of the Day

"Bad things do happen; how I respond to them defines my character and the quality of my life. I can choose to sit in perpetual sadness, immobilized by the gravity of my loss, or I can choose to rise from the pain and treasure the most precious gift I have - life itself."

Walter Anderson

Source: INTERLUDE: An Internet Retreat.

_____________________

It can be difficult in our age of instant unremitting information to come to grips with what is truly important. We each need to define what a "good life" means. I can't help but think a good life has to involve caring sometimes more for others than for ourselves.

________________________________

I like Arlo Guthrie's song "Hobo's Lullaby" and was thinking it would be kind of funny to post it as a suggestion of things to come. Watching this video isn't as funny as I thought it would be. It makes me think about all the people who have suffered economic hardship long before this current situation which is getting so much of our attention. We hold out hope for a more just world where we create economic and social structures that are good for all people.

Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities

Alternate titles - "if you are stuck in hole it's probably best to stop digging" or "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

The article Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) should be read by anyone who still wants to jump on the "tax cut for the wealthy...trickle down...supply side economics" bandwagon as defined by Ronald Reagan, then George W. Bush and now John McCain.

I know with the current state of the economy this seems like kind of "duh" stuff but there are actually people proposing tax cuts, with no idea how they are going to pay for them other than vague references to - "pork barrels" and "earmarks" (or to put it another way federal money provided for state or local projects which hasn't gone through the usual "merit-based" process Congress uses to spend money) - and something about us "sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations." (or to put it another way we are buying oil from a variety of foreign countries including Canada).

It's interesting to note that earmarks are not necessarily good or bad and accounted for a (relatively speaking) measly 16.5 billion, some say up to 18 billion, in 2007. Just to make the arithmetic easier let's assume those pesky earmarked pork barrels cost us 20 billion a year. Now assume the national debt is 10 trillion (it will be more before we finish trying to shore up the banks). Let's see...1000 billion dollars is 1 trillion. 50 times 20 is 1000...So....I need 50 years of no earmarks to pay off 10% of the debt. That can't be right! Is it?

Whenever someone talks about cutting spending it's good to keep in mind that over 70% of the federal budget is allocated to defense, the entitlement programs - social security, medicare and medicaid, and paying interest on the debt. So unless a candidate is willing to cut the defense budget they are left with cutting that small slice of the pie that's left - without adversely impacting education, science and health research, veterans benefits, protecting the environment, alternative energy programs and ultimately our long-term ability to survive, thrive and remain competitive in the world.

Here's a summary of the myths and realities from the article -

Myth 1: Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007.

Reality: Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.

Myth 3: The economy has grown strongly over the past several years because of the tax cuts.

Reality: The 2001-2007 economic expansion was sub-par overall, and job and wage growth were anemic.

Myth 4: Even if economic growth and the job market were weak during the early stages of the recovery, the capital gains and dividend tax cuts turned the economy around in 2003.

Reality: The available evidence indicates that the capital gains and dividend tax cuts were not the cause of improvement in the economy in 2003.

Myth 5: Extending the tax cuts is important for the economy’s long-run health.

Reality: Extending the tax cuts without paying for them would be more likely to reduce economic growth over the long run than to increase it.

Myth 6: The tax cuts have made the tax system more progressive.

Reality: The tax cuts have made the distribution of take-home pay more unequal — at a time when inequality in before-tax income has also increased.

Myth 7: The tax cuts have made the tax system more fair to small business owners.

Reality: The President’s tax cuts affect small business owners much as they affect the population as a whole: they provide large gains to those with high incomes and little benefit to others. For more information see Big Misconceptions about Small Businesses and Taxes

Myth 8: Even if high-income taxpayers have received the largest gains from the tax cuts, taxpayers across the income spectrum have benefited.

Reality: Taking into account the fact that their costs eventually must be paid for, most American families likely will lose from the tax cuts over the long run.

________________________________

So how come this myth gets implemented as public policy you may ask?

"Conservative" policy makers get executive summary information from groups like the Heritage Foundation which is in turn funded by people who have a vested interest in making super rich people richer by whatever means possible - including a never-ending series of wars that call for expansion of the military/industrial complex, and redistribution of wealth via deficit spending and tax policies that favor the elite class of multi-millionaires/billonaires.

As Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world said, "there is a class war and we're winning." To be fair to Warren Buffett he's also said he doesn't think that's right.

Groups like the Heritage Foundation staff up with "true-believers" who have a fundamentalist view that doesn't allow for dispassionate treatment of fact.

You can see this in a Heritage Foundation report from 2001 Cost of Bush's Tax Plan that claims the Bush tax plan "would eliminate the federal debt by 2010." We know the federal debt has increased every year George Bush has been in office and the 2008 debt is estimated to be 9 trillion 654 billon dollars (that estimate is before we try to prop up the failing banks with taxes that come from the middle class). Of course in 2001 no one knew this, but the paper is written in such a way to present what turns out to be an ill-informed opinion - as fact.

__________________________________

In 2000 the Heritage Foundation was beating their drum to tell leaders it was Time to Eliminate the Costly Death Tax. It's interesting to note that part of the overall strategy was to rename the estate tax, the death tax - because that sounds scary and makes poor people afraid that the government was going to unfairly tax whatever meager amount might be in their estate.

The Heritage Foundation represents a very small minority of people who would like to consolidate wealth. They certainly don't represent rich people if you consider people like William H. Gates (Bill's dad), Warren Buffett, and George Soros, and the Dozens of Wealthy Joined to Fight Estate Tax Repeal.

I know this sounds unbelievably weird and conspiracy-like in a free country like the USA, but according to this article by Robert Reich,

"The campaign to repeal the estate tax was financed and coordinated by 18 families worth a total of $185 billion."

How does this sham get perpetrated?

Propaganda is a powerful tool - just look at all the poor people who watch Fox News and listen to "conservatives" on talk radio and somehow are misled into thinking the Bush administration, some so called "conservatives", and now John McCain who drank the tax cut kool-aid, have their best interests at heart, while progressive Democrats (and yes some Republicans), who might have some ideas that would actually help them get ahead - are evil. If you say that someone is evil, stupid, crazy, radical, a liar...or whatever name you can think of, who needs to argue the facts?

Of course we'll see a lot of low ball ads, funded primarily by the greedy minority of the super-rich, aimed at trying to scare average Americans away from electing progressive politicians who actually do have their best interests in mind. I don't think dirty fighting will work this time, people are tired of the scare and hate tactics that try to divert them from the real issues.

Enough people have had enough to make sure we get a new deal for the next four years.

_________________________________

Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone

Who's Winning The Presidential Election?

This morning TIME magazine's online poll shows 86% of the 20,227 people completing the survey think Barack Obama won the debate last Friday. This poll is skewed towards people who read the relatively unbiased current events coverage provided by Time magazine, and use computers to obtain news.

I don't put much credence in polls.

Markets may be a better predictor of future events, since they have the incentive of requiring people put their money where their mouth is.

Intrade Prediction Markets has Barack Obama up by more than 16 points (57.8 to 41) over John McCain.

I still believe this could be a very close election and it would be a mistake for Obama supporters to become complacent.

______________________________

Postscript 9/29/2009

To see the TIME poll you need to go to "past polls" now. The end result of 29,442 votes was that 85% say Barack Obama won the first presidential debate.

Intrade Prediction Markets has Barack Obama with a 23 point lead over John McCain at this time (Barack Obama 61.1 vs. McCain 38.1)

Liberal? or Conservative?

I'm definitely not an expert on what the term liberal means but a number of people on Wikipedia have come up with these general definitions of liberalism, which I've modified slightly to fit my own view -

Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

Economic liberalism supports balancing free markets and free trade with social justice for all people as the best route to peace and prosperity.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, gender identification, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life.

Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, appropriate limitations on the power of governments so as not to infringe on individual liberty, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, free press, private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government.

All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

I believe that all advances in society come from people who we would consider liberal in that they are willing to abandon current systems if necessary, or at least be willing to change and build on what has come before.

The success and depth of liberal thought is why we have liberal arts education and why there are so many important writings by liberal theorists over the last two thousand years.

If that's liberalism then what is a conservatism?

The Wikipedia article for Conservatism includes this quote -

"To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."

A conservative point of view considers the status quo desirable or may want to return to what is perceived as better times in the past and therefore has no way to expand on an existing belief system in search of a better way, which leads to dogmatism, fundamentalism, fear of change and a diminished sense of humor.

I believe a conservative/traditional point of view works when we are talking about philosophical, religious and ethical principles which are stable, but fails as a mindset for political ideas which have to adapt and evolve to keep pace with change - in society, the economy, local and global environments.

Given that conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living that strives to keep things the way they are or return to the past - it's understandable why it fails as the basis for a political party and why it is that many people have very little idea of what it means when they define themselves or others as politically conservative.

It also explains the conservative method of attacking anything new or different while offering little or nothing in the way of novel ways of thinking that offer a better alternative.

In the interest of fairness I don't want to dismiss conservatism, as I've said I believe it has a place in religion, ethics, as well as in defining cultural, family and societal values. If we want to learn about the basis of what we consider conservatism today - Ayn Rand may be a place to start.

Ayn Rand's writing forms the intellectual basis for political/economic conservatism in the 20th century with her proposition that Capitalism - full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, is the only social system that fully recognizes the right of the individual.

I haven't seen many (any) politicians who hold to this belief. As we all know, or are re-learning, the free market can be very cruel...and I'm not sure most people really have the stomach for the kind of social upheaval unregulated free market capitalism can wreak. Not to say our great experiment with Democratic Capitalism has not in many ways been a tremendous success...and in other ways failed us - which I have faith, the liberal thinkers will continue to correct.

I could never finish her book Atlas Shrugged but Ayn Rand wrote some interesting things to think about - here's a couple of links - one for an article she wrote for the Reader's Digest in 1944 and the other for a speech she gave to West Point grads in the 1974.

The Only Path To Tomorrow - by Ayn Rand

Philosophy: Who Needs It? - by Ayn Rand

380 Years

That's how long it would take a worker making 50 thousand dollars a year to equal the pay and bonuses which may be given to the WaMu CEO for 3 weeks of work.

Alan Fishman was hired on September 8th to replace former WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger and help turn the troubled bank around. For those 3 weeks of work, before WaMu failed and was bought by JPMorgan Chase, Mr. Fishman's contract could allow him to receive 19 million dollars.

That just doesn't seem right.

There's an interesting graph of the increasing divide between the very rich and the rest of America at Visualizing Economics

Several things jump out from the graph -

• In 1980 (the last year before Reagonomics, trickle down for the poor and middle class, and tax cuts for the richest of the rich) the bottom 90% of American families had an average income of $30,446. By 2006 a comparable average family income, adjusted for inflation, was $30,374. In other words this average family's annual income in terms of purchasing power, decreased by $72 between 1980 and 2006. The upper .01% of America's richest families did a lot better. They took in 5.4 million in 1980 and by 2006 had increased their income more than 5 fold to 29.6 million.

• There's a direct correlation between reduction of the marginal tax rate for the super rich and the growing income divide between the super rich and the rest of America.

• The top .01% of America income is almost 1000 times that of the bottom 90%. I'm all for rewarding individual effort and utilizing free markets with adequate regulations but there is something seriously wrong with our income distribution when we consider that one child in six lives in poverty.
  

This disparity is particular troubling when you look at this Poverty Map. As of 2006 the poverty line is defined by the federal government to be $10,400 for a single person and $21,200 for a family of four.

Approximately 1 person in 8 lives in poverty. For people under 18 years of age the figure is approximately 1 person in 6.

The Economic Crisis - What Would Jesus Do?

Matthew 19:21-24 - The Rich Young Man

21 Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ 22 When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

Mark 10:21-24 - Tells the Story Again

21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ 22 When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ 24 And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

Luke 6:27-31 Love For Enemies

27 ‘But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I don't think the point is that money, or having money, is bad but rather that we need to consider the transitory nature of material things and how putting these things above all else interferes with spiritual growth - or if you aren't the sort who's interested in spiritual growth - how striving after transitory things is a guarantee for a life filled with unhappiness, worry and striving for ever more objects.

To put it in practical terms Jesus is telling us that, Joy, peace of mind, and true freedom do not come from accumulating wealth but rather by giving up all we have (worries, false Gods, addictions) and showing compassion for others. Very few are going to take that advice literally but at least we can remember the spirit even if we don't always live by the letter.

The real bottom line is that Christianity is a religion of love and compassion and those two key criteria should inform how Christians choose to lead their lives.

Grit Magazine: Celebrating Rural Community Since 1882

There's something reassuring about looking at Grit Magazine, learning how to build a Chicken Castle, and how to make Six Easy Casseroles with some Double-Delight Peanut Butter Cookies for dessert.

Hate Radio and Its Consequences

From the PBS show "Bill Moyer's Journal" September 12, 2008 editon Rage on the Radio -

Last July Jim David Adkisson walked into a Unitarian Universal church in Knoxville, Tennessee and shot and killed one person, left another mortally wounded and six others injured.

It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement.

Why did Adkisson hate "the liberal movement"? Police said that he told them "that all liberals should be killed ... because they were ... ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and ... ruined every institution in America...." Police said that Adkisson had targeted the Unitarian Universalist Church "because of its liberal teachings." The church advocates social justice and tolerance, and it openly welcomes gay, lesbian, and transgendered members. According to police, Adkisson said that, "Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would target those that had voted them in to office."In the weeks following the tragedy, the congregation and its pastor, Reverend Chris Buice struggled with what they were learning about Adkisson.

Police found in Adkisson's apartment, books by popular right-wing talk-radio personalities who berate and denigrate liberals. One of the books police found in Adkisson's apartment was Michael Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". In it, Savage calls liberals "the enemy within our country;" "an enemy more dangerous than Hitler"; "traitors" who are "dangerous to your survival" and who "should be placed in a straightjacket". Like Adkisson, Savage accuses liberals of "[tying] the hands of our military".

Bill Moyers ends the show with this -

"Watching that report, however, I was reminded of a story from folk lore about the tribal elder telling his grandson about the battle the old man was waging within himself. He said, 'My son it is between two wolves. One is an evil wolf: anger, envy, sorrow, greed, self-pity, guilt, resentment, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other is the good wolf: joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.' The boy took this in for a few minutes and then asked, 'Which wolf won?' His grandfather answered, 'The one I feed.' So, too, America's public life. The wolf that wins is the wolf we feed. Media provides the fodder."

Freedom of speech needs to be protected so we live with the hate and fear mongers and hope that compassionate people will educate the next generation to ensure that the people who produce and listen to this kind of hate-filled garbage will be an ever shrinking minority.

The principles of Unitarian Universalism would not be a bad place to start -

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

___________________________

This article summarizes and goes beyond the issues Bill Moyers covered - Open Left:: Bill Moyers Shines Light On Hate Radio--But Deep Shadows Remain

Seattle Times Endorses Barack Obama for President

Seattle Times has endorsed Barack Obama, saying -

"American optimism has been wracked by President George Bush and a previous Republican Congress. If you want change, you do not keep what is essentially the same team in power. You try something different. You vote for the stronger matchup, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, a smart and steady hand on foreign policy and other matters."

The endorsement explains why Barack Obama's coherent plans are the better choice for the economy, energy, the Iraq war, and education.

_______________________________

The conservative journalist George F. Will expands on the concerns over John McCain's temperment in today's Washington Post.

This is the YouTube version of this Sunday's news on ABC -

Part of George Will's concern is that McCain is acting irrationally by saying things like - the chairman of the SEC Securities and Exchange Commission, "has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him. "

We don't need a president who makes hot-headed off the cuff statements which don't make sense in a crisis situation. Besides the concern about temperament, there is a concern that John McCain may not be coherent enough to know that the president can't fire the chairman of the SEC who is nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate and heads an independent agency.

Sam Donaldson brings up the age factor which seems like something to consider if you watch this clip where John McCain, when asked about his comments about the SEC chairman, gets confused and says he thinks the head of the FEC Federal Election Commission should resign and be replaced.