Tax Cut Delusion Syndrome

The dogmatic belief that tax cuts are the solution to most macroeconomic problems in the US (doesn't necessarily apply to other countries), including, but not restricted to:

• Stagnant economy
• High unemployment
• Recession
• Banking crisis
• Deficit reduction
• Surplus reduction

This condition persists even after mathematical intervention.
Treatments: Unknown
Cause: <free feel to speculate>

The Dilemma of Political Parties

Ezra Klein had great column a few weeks ago. I don't name-drop on columnists because I'm not impressed by names, and I certainly don't want to become one of the hundreds of bloggers who constantly comment on what other bloggers say.

But this column--it was a wonderful explanation of how political parties are ruining governance at this sorry time in our history. I'll quote what he says because it's completely clear and readable:

Parties no longer compete to win elections by giving voters the policies voters want. Rather, as coalitions of intense policy demanders, they have their own agendas and aim to get voters to go along. [quoting a paper]

...So the basic work of political parties is figuring out precisely how much of their agenda they need to sacrifice on the altar of electability.

...Parties must still... respond to voter wishes, but they wish to cede as little policy to voter preferences as possible [quoting again]

Klein shows how this applies to the current crop of Republican candidates, or leftovers as I've called them:

[The Republican party] members sense that this election might end with Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the presidency. In that event, Republicans could get away with quite a lot. So they don’t want to blow it. What a shame it would be to have wasted this opportunity on a centrist candidate who will just end up compromising with Senate Democrats and looking to burnish his image with independents. On the other hand, it would be even worse to blow the opportunity on an extremist candidate who will scare voters into reelecting President Obama.

Definitely read the column. But the follow-up to this thesis is the practical question--how do we make our political parties answerable to more of us, not just to the "intense policy demanders?" If I ever read about that, I'll let you know.

Update 1/5/12. I heard a piece on NPR that is a corollary to Ezra's post. If politicians, when in office, are responding to their most intense supporters, we get a pendulum effect of throwing one set of partisans out, and electing the other set, and then having to throw them out. My post on the topic here.

Funny Moments in America Bonds

I love the fascinating bits of lore you come across on the internet, so I'm sharing this one.

Faced with the dilemma of financing WWII President Franklin D. Roosevelt received adamant advice to raise taxes and introduce a forced savings program. Instead, FDR wisely followed the advice of Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgentthau, JR., who working with Peter Odegard, a political scientist specialized in motivating masses (read propaganda) created the War Advertising Council.

The result was a whopping $187.5 Billion ($2.5+ Trillion dollars adjusted for inflation into 2009 dollars) to fund the war effort. Just as important as the money, the War Bonds became a rallying cry for the public to express its patriotism, follow its iconic leaders' calls for action, and allowed for 85 million Americans to actively participate in the War effort.

The threat to our country in 2009 is greater than in early 1940. Not only is our economic survival threatened, but, our survival as a species on this planet teeters on a dangerous fulcrum. ...

A current day version of FDR's War Bonds, the FundAmerica plan as proposed by the Prosperity Mandate provides a new source of $2.5 Trillion and:

• Is Budget Neutral
• Does NOT Raise Taxes
• Requires No More Debt
• Is Sustainable and Renewable...

When you're done laughing, answer this question: Would you take whatever money you had and buy the equivalent of a war bond? I might...

...if FDR was president and the US didn't have a $15 trillion debt.

A horrible secret

Although I usually write about national politics, I never forget that politics is not the be-all. So many things in life are more important than who wins an election-- a belief in the meaning of life, a chance to experience a joyful life, giving and receiving love and friendship.

This post is about something beyond electoral politics. It's about Mike McQueary, the assistant in the Penn State athletics program who witnessed Jerry Sandusky allegedly raping a boy in 2002. McQueary, shocked and uncertain, left the scene, and reported the incident to his father and to the head coach Joe Paterno.

There are huge, disturbing, painful questions.

The Perpetrator

How could someone who was respected as kind and generous ... also be a serial rapist of children?

A lot of players who knew Sandusky are shocked. Jon Ritchie, a former fullback, said:

I thought he was the most compassionate, altruistic, selfless man on the face of the earth. I'd known him since I was 14 years old.... We developed a relationship... I loved him. I thought that he was what I wanted to be...

I have just a bit of experience with child molesters. In the town where I live, we had a new high school principal. He was popular with the kids because he found some ways to make school more responsive to them. For example, they could pile up merit points towards pizza lunches or a free afternoon. The hall pass system was reformed in a simple way that made it a lot fairer. They weren't big changes, but the kids felt for once that they had an ally.

Unfortunately, there were a couple questionably incidents (without physical contact), and more thorough investigation revealed a strong possibility of past sex with middle school or high school boys. The man's foster son was removed from his home, and he was fired as principal. I don't know what became of him.

I did learn that it's possible that a molester really loves kids, but then crosses that strict line that you don't have sexual contact with them. Most adults don't have that problem. I love my kids, I love my neighbors' kids, and I don't have any sexual interest in them. It's the same for most people. But this principal loved kids more than an average parent or teacher. But he also crossed the line. I can't label him a monster, but what he did was still wrong and unacceptable, and I have no regret that he's gone.

The Witness

How could someone witness the rape of a child and not intervene or follow up to make sure that no other children were endangered?

Again, Jon Ritchie said:

My reality was Jerry Sandusky was Mother Teresa.... It's really hard for me to put myself in Mike McQueary's position.... I conceptualize my defensive coordinator ... doing what he is alleged to have done.... At that point in time, my mind would be gone, I would flee, I would run.... My world would be turned upside down.... Apparently that is what Mike had done.

Many molesters bind victims psychologically by heaping shame on them. Their shame, though not their fault, keeps them silent. It can be the same for witnesses. Since Mike McQueary didn't immediately stop Sandusky and turn him over to the police, he shared some of Sandusky's guilt. The shame of that might have paralyzed McQueary until it came time to tell the truth to the grand jury. Notably, university officials are being charged with lying to the grand jury, but McQueary isn't.

********************************************

I don't excuse Sandusky in any way. I believe in harsh punishment for child molesters, but I don't think he was a complete monster. However, a partial monster is still a monster, and we need to remove monsters from society.

I have sympathy for McQueary. It's incredibly difficult to protect the small against the powerful and respected, and I've been the coward more than I've been a hero. The best way to help witnesses is mandated reporter laws with clear requirements of what witnesses have to do. Such laws seem to provide the higher power that guides us wavering souls down the right path.

********************************************

"But I'll tell you this: when I was 16, I finally demanded my pedophile explain what he'd been doing to me.

"I believe, to the bottom of my soul, that he'd found ways to justify it for my good.

"And after the difficult time of processing this over the last week, I'm also coming to the realization that much of the good pedophiles do, which I'd previously assumed was to provide cover and gain access, is likely also to convince themselves they're good, not just evil. It's a horrifying feedback loop; the more good they do, the more they gain for their shortcoming."  --zic, a blog commenter

Update 6/22/12. Sandusky has just been found guilty of 45 counts out of 48. This feels like justice to me, but justice doesn't erase the evil he's done. Unfortunately, nothing does. It's one of the imperfections of our existence, that such wrong-doing can't be undone, not by the judicial system, not by apologies, and often not by penance. That's why we have to strive to do good and avoid evil. I hope I remember that every day of my life.

Health costs reimbursements - FAIL

I had an inspiration today. The way we pay for healthcare is like the old military cost-plus contracts. The payer (the government, the private insurance company) pays for all the costs the patients racks up (or a percentage of the costs). This method was terrible at cost-containment on military spending, so we junked it. It's terrible for cost-containment on healthcare spending, so we should... junk it.

Finding a new model to pay for and manage healthcare costs, now that won't be easy, especially with people screaming "rationing" and fighting every inch of cost containment. How do we get consumers to want less healthcare and doctors to hold down costs while maintaining a responsive healthcare system?

The Unbearable Debt Deal Quantified

As I wrote before, the wily Dems managed to get the Republicans to agree defense spending cuts that they now find unpalatable. Republicans are looking for ways to avoid those cuts.

• One way is for the House, Senate, and whatever president we have in 2013 to agree not to make those defense cuts. That's a pretty big stretch. It won't happen if Obama is re-elected. Even with a Republican president, Democratic senators could block moves to void the defense cuts.

• Another way is for the super committee to agree on another plan that the House, Senate, and president all accept.

The Republicans are now in the weaker position:

• They want to reduce the defense spending cuts.
• They want to maintain Bush tax cuts, which are worth $3.7 trillion over 10 years.
• They have no leverage for either of these goals.

The Democrats are now in the stronger position:

• They have largely accepted cuts to Medicare that are capped at 2% a year.
• The debt ceiling deal protected Social Security and Medicaid from cuts.
• They have leverage using defense spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012.

Despite their weak negotiating positions, the best offer from the Republicans is:

• $250 billion higher tax revenues through limiting deductions if...
• Tax rates are frozen at below Bush tax rates.

It's no wonder that the Dems aren't agreeing. They hold a lot more leverage now, and the Repubs' offer is paltry. Republicans only seems serious about deficit reductions when social programs pay the price. They can dish out the austerity, but they can't take it. We'll have to see if they'll threaten a government shutdown by holding up appropriations next year. As far as I can see (for what that's worth), that is the only leverage they will have until after the election.

The debt ceiling fight was the historic crisis that prompted me to start this blog. If looks even more historic now. It's quite a reversal for the Republicans. I wonder if that's the price they paid for playing chicken, and which Democrat was responsible for that advantageous outcome.

 Who dunnit?

Despite this apparent win for the Democrats, the 2012 election is still up for grabs. I'm not going to predict which party is going to win, or which party is able to spin this to their advantage. So often, it has been the Republicans, so I won't count them out.

Fits vs. Misfits

All the liberation movements here in the US have moved people from the "other" column into the "us" column. Blacks, Native Americans, other religions, women, gays, lesbians, the handicapped are no longer outsiders. I think this makes for a better world. That's why I argue with people about going back to old-fashioned values, because a lot of it was ugly and hateful.

However, among the positive trends on acceptance, there is at least one negative trend: conservatives have allegedly been made into misfits on campus, in classrooms, and in academic scholarship. At least, that's what I thought I would find. This story is less than I thought it would be.

This is what I found. Conservatives feel outnumbered. Again, the problem of unexpectedly being the minority. But most colleges have conservative groups and traditional religious groups. I didn't see any reports of these groups being mobbed, thrown off campus, members beaten or threatened. The sum total of wrongs:

• A non-student friend banned from demonstrating (the worst denial of rights I could find)
• A conservative political poster removed from a student's room and replaced with one supporting Obama.
• Obscene insults shouted at "Straight-Pride" supporters.

Does this look really thin to anyone else? I have heard of worse incidents in the past--speakers shouted down, vandalism of signs and literature. That's worse and crosses the line of civility and perhaps legality, but is incredibly mild compared to what happened to Matthew Shepard or James Chaney, and doesn't seem to be happening often.

So, no, I didn't find lots of reports of intimidation of conservatives, unless simply being in the minority is more intimidation than you can handle. There are plenty of resources if you are a conservative on campus. You can report wrongs to this blog. There are probably other well-funded organizations to help you too.

What is the problem of being a conservative on campus? It is that you're verbally intimidated, given lower grades, socially isolated? Or is that you're uncomfortable being so clearly in the minority? That happens to a lot of people--try being a woman in the hard sciences, a man in nursing, black almost anywhere. It will not feel comfortable at first. But I didn't find evidence that conservatives' fear on campus went beyond fear of being in the minority. Campuses are safe places to be conservative, but you probably won't be popular. Deal with it.

I live in a college town with a lot of progressives and old-line liberals, and just a few conservatives. In my family, it's all liberals. As a moderate, I am the outlier. Living with liberals, though, is not so bad. They may belittle and scorn, but they will back off when you point this out. So after they exercise their free speech on some liberal mantra, you can exercise your free speech on your viewpoint. And if they mock you, call them on it. It's not so hard. Stop whining and start standing up for yourself. If there are problems after that, then tell me about it.

Extras:
Professor mass emails angry response to Republicans. Not good, but the conservative columnist says she shouldn't have a job.
Good comeback to conservative complaints - they don't want to read books, etc.
Philosophy professors critique complaints. One problem is that conservatives are often dogmatic on moral issues, making discussion of different philosophies difficult.
Complaints about lack of diversity among professors - anecdotal