Parental Government

I've listened lately to a lot of political commentary concerning the war in Iraq, terror/security, health benefits, ... the list goes on. Inevitably, the commentary comes down to one of two viewpoints on the role of government.

"Conservative" vs. "Liberal"? Nope.

"Mommy" vs. "Daddy".

Most of us were raised in a traditional family where Dad made and enforced the rules, settled fights, rendered penalties, and protected the family; Mom's job was to cook, clean, and nurture your dreams.

The "Daddy" crowd want a strong government with nearly unlimited powers to ensure security or just to settle fights. The "Mommy" crowd want a government that ensures everyone has food, shelter, and the basic essential needs that create a nurturing environment where people can be all they can be.

In general, you'll find men are more Daddy Government-oriented and women are more Mommy Government-oriented.

You'll also find that Daddy Government people are more likely to be authoritarians, and who insist that the government's actions to "protect us" not be criticized or contemplated. These folks believe -- truly believe -- that it's heresy (or traitorous) to criticize the government's actions and tactics "while we're at war". They believe that the government must be assumed to be right. Attempting to suppress democratic free speech is authoritarian and must be fought.

You'll find that Mommy Government people are more likely to have socialistic tendencies, assuming that taxing one group to support another is in everyone's interest. Sometimes it is (e.g., Social Security moved most elderly people out of abject poverty and into the middle class), and sometimes it's not.

Personally, I think a clear debate on the role of government would be good for this country. Should the federal government enforce moral positions? Should the government have unlimited powers to beat up another country or jail anyone without some form of legal safeguards? Should the government tax enough to pay all of its bills? These questions shouldn't just elicit one-word answers or slogans ("All taxes are bad!"), but truly meaningful debate and discussion. Is transferring wealth from workers to the elderly a good thing or a bad thing for this country?

The next time you get to talk with your local/state/federal representative, find out whether they approach government from a Daddy or Mommy perspective and decide if that's right for you.

A Fair Tax Affair

Every year around April 15th, you'll hear a lot of cries for more "fair" taxation, usually from people who owe taxes at the end of the year. They claim it's not "fair" that rich people pay a larger burden of taxes than poor people. They claim it's not "fair" that some people have figured out how to pay no taxes or to get a refund without having paid any taxes.

My question for them: since when is life "fair"? As little kids, we learned that life wasn't really fair. And our lives have certainly never been "equal", otherwise we'd all have the same amount of money. So saying that everyone should pay the same tax rate is just as ridiculous.

The basic gist of the "Fair Tax" plan is this: every product or service you purchase for consumption is taxed (estimated at 23%). Those taxes are likely collected by your state government, which is already collecting a sales tax from most of us, and passed on to the US Treasury. Each month, you receive from the Treasury a check equal to 1/12th the amount of the taxes you'd pay if your income were even with the poverty line. This rebate, guaranteed to everyone, ensures that people at the lower end of the economic scale don't pay a large portion of their wages as sales taxes. Under the plan, all taxes in the current Federal laws are repealed, including all corporate, estate, dividend, payroll taxes; all those deductions -- health care credits, mortgage deductions, child care credits -- are also gone.

Anyway, back to the real problems with the "Fair Tax" proposal.

"Fair Tax" has unrealistic targets. HR 25 targets the beginning of 2007 for using the new tax code and repealing the old one. It also targets CURRENT tax revenues for the tax rate, not taking into account that the Federal government is currently spending over $450,000,000,000 more than it is collecting. Both of those targets are unreasonable. The target date is unreasonable, because -- with less than two years to go -- the government is incapable to completely re-do the computer software necessary to ensure compliance with the new method of collecting the tax. The reason that the target revenues are unreasonable seem obvious.

Impoverished people will end up paying a disproportionate amount of their wages as taxes. This statement is one of the ugly truths about any flat-tax scheme. People who don't make a lot of money spend a higher proportion of their income on goods and services required to make their lives work. Under "Fair Tax", spending more on consumption guarantees that you will spend more on taxes. People with a lot of money don't have to spend all of their money to get by. Is it "fair" to ask poor people to sink further into poverty?

The "Fair Tax" changes the entire economic paradigm of the largest consumer economy on the planet. Whether you are willing to acknowledge this or not, the USA is the economic engine that drives the world economy. We are HUGE consumers of goods created both here and abroad. With "Fair Tax", at a flip of the calendar, every one of our expenditures will suddenly have a 23% (or more) Federal tax rate. Makes you stop and think before buying that new house or car, doesn't it? Regardless of whether companies will lower their product/services prices by the same amount (and by no means is that assured), it's still a large bump every time you spend on something. What happens if USA consumers suddenly stop partying at Wal-Mart like it's 1999? Many economists think we need to start saving more, but are worried that we actually might start saving more and drag the world economy into a depression. Scary thoughts, but the "Fair Tax" isn't concerned with scary thoughts.

In my mind, the bad things in this proposal are summed up by the nonsense buried at the end of the Fair Tax bill (HR 25):

SEC. 301. PHASE-OUT OF ADMINISTRATION OF REPEALED FEDERAL TAXES.

(a) Appropriations- Appropriations for any expenses of the Internal Revenue Service including processing tax returns for years prior to the repeal of the taxes repealed by title I of this Act, revenue accounting, management, transfer of payroll and wage data to the Social Security Administration for years after fiscal year 2007 shall not be authorized.

(b) Records- Federal records related to the administration of taxes repealed by title I of this Act shall be destroyed by the end of fiscal year 2007, except that any records necessary to calculate Social Security benefits shall be retained by the Social Security Administration and any records necessary to support ongoing litigation with respect to taxes owed or refunds due shall be retained until final disposition of such litigation.

In other words, with the Fair Tax (under this bill) activated in 2007, any tax cheating, tax disputes, tax refunds, etc. still outstanding at the end of 2007 will disappear into the shredder. I wonder who thought that up?

The reality of the plan, though, is that for all its noise, Congress will not pass a plan that changes the current tax structure. Why? Because the incentives and disincentives built into the current system are a boon to certain Congressional benefactors (i.e., the people with money looking for an edge on their competition) and with a nearly 96% re-election rate, Congresspeople will not look to change the current system, because it won't help them win their next election.

Is that outlook cynical? I think it's quite "fair".

The Voucher Scam

Two big trends in "education reform" are "choice" and "accountability". Both trends sound completely reasonable. But it's all just a bunch of baloney.

First up: "choice". Also known as "vouchers", this scam hides a bigger lie inside of a smaller one. The small lie is that if our tax dollars were given back to us to send our kids to the schools of our choice, the poor schools will be "forced" (through competition) to get better and everyone will win. The theory behind this lie is that private schools are so much better than public schools and since private schools compete for educational dollars with the other schools, it's the competition that makes them better. The lie here is that there's no empirical evidence to connect "competition" with "better private schools".

The area in which I live has four of the best schools in the state (measured by standardized test scores and failure rates). These schools are all public schools and their students regularly score as well or better than their peers at private schools in the same county. The neighborhoods around these schools? Mostly upper-middle income families. In the same county, we also have some of the poorest-performing schools in the region, and you would be right to guess that those schools are in the lower income neighborhoods. Same county, same school board, same teacher pool, same standards, different outcome. The difference isn't "competition" with private schools. The school doesn't take those tests that measure how well a school is doing; the students take the tests.

And that's where the big scam comes in. If money is bled out of the public schools so that students could go to whatever school they wanted, only those with available transportation and the additional time will attend the better schools. In other words, upper-income families -- where Mom doesn't work and can spend her morning shuttling kids to school -- will be able to afford the additional drive time and costs involved with sending their kids to the better schools at taxpayer expense. The lower-income families? They're stuck with whatever is in their neighborhood, regardless of the quality of the rest of the student population.

The reality here is that many of these same upper-income families already send their kids to private schools. These upper-income families would get back a few thousand of their tax dollars and send their kids to the exact same place. Poorer families get screwed, because they can't send their kid across town to a "better" school. So the "choice" here is really only a choice for those who can afford to make a different decision.

So why do private schools on average end up with higher standardized scores and lower failure rates? Because private schools choose their students! Public schools are stuck with everyone else. Every child has to attend school, but not every child is permitted to attend a private school. Every child, no matter how disruptive, no matter how disabled, no matter how much money their families make, no matter how little they know the local language... public school must take them. Doesn't sound like a fair competition, does it? Even a public school-educated guy like me can figure out that the field isn't level between private and public schools.

And that's where standardized testing and "accountability" is supposed to help. I don't have any problem with testing kids to make sure they learn what they're supposed to learn. I have a problem averaging those scores and using it to condemn the school, the school board or the state.

Here's a good example: Iowa has the highest average SAT score in the country if all you compare is the average SAT scores. The problem with that simple comparison is that Iowa is near the bottom of the rankings -- at 4% -- when it comes to the actual number of students taking the exam. In other words, although Iowa ranks highly, very few of their high school students can go to college. On the other hand, Georgia ranks near the very bottom when you compare the average scores; however, Georgia ranks 10th in the nation (at 73%) for the percentage of students taking the exam. And Georgia gets slammed for being near the bottom of the scores, but nary a mention of the number of students taking the exam.

Using standardized tests to measure student progress and then holding the schools and teachers responsible for the average results is just wrong-headed. First of all, "the school" doesn't take the test; making "the school" responsible for the average outcome is the wrong approach. "No Child Left Behind" is more about punishing schools than teaching kids. Teachers are required to teach to a standardized test -- instead of teaching what kids really need to learn -- just so the school doesn't "fail".

Schools don't fail... unless they slide along a kid who isn't learning. Let's hold students ultimately responsible for their own success. That's a good lesson for them to learn starting at a young age.

What's the right approach? Less standardized instruction to a pre-defined curriculum that's only suited to the non-existent "average" student. Instead, define the curriculum and set a minimum pace that the student must achieve to be passed to the next grade or graduated. Allow students who want to move faster through the curriculum do so. Instead of lumping all students together, separate them by ability and let them learn at the pace at which they are most productive. Some kids are just smarter and better prepared than others; allow those kids to learn faster and more independently and spend more money and time on the kids who need the help.

Notice that none of this has anything to do with teacher's unions, school boards or incompetent teachers. It's not their fault when kids don't learn. It's always the student's own responsibility to learn what they need to know, regardless of their circumstances. Let's help the kids who need the help, hold them accountable for their own success, and stop punishing them further by sucking the supporting dollars out of their schools.

How not to save Social Security

Although we've had this debate several times in the recent past, President Bush has made "saving Social Security" one of the cornerposts of his second term.

The recent Congressional Budget Office report on Social Security provides some insight into the exact status of Social Security. According to the CBO's projections, if absolutely NOTHING changes -- either with current demographic trends, current health cost trends, or the current payroll tax base -- Social Security outlays will exceed Social Security revenues in 2020... 15 years from now. In 2053, if nothing changes and their projections are correct, the surplus will be gone and the government will be obligated to either increase taxes or decrease Social Security outlays.

The Social Security situation is "serious" we're being told. Not quite the "crisis" the Bush Administration tried to use at first to sell their solution. Now that "crisis" has been downgraded to "serious." Code Orange, if you like. The problem is 50 years out and it's "serious". Seriously.

Social Security was a "New Deal"-era program to keep those who could no longer work from falling into abject poverty. It was never a savings plan. It's a "pay as you go" plan: the money you contribute now pays benefits for someone else now or sometime in the near future. A payroll tax on the first $90,000 (indexed to inflation) is used to pay into the program, with half that tax coming from you and half from your employer. Why only up to the first $90,000? Why not tax those who can most afford it more? Good questions.

In fact, if you increased the payroll tax maximum up to $200,000, Social Security would be solvent through the end of this century and beyond. But that's not how Republicans want to solve the problem.

The Republican solution? Make the Social Security problem worse by taking more money out of Social Security so that people can open brokerage accounts and invest in the stock market. If it's good for Wall Street, it must be good for Main Street, right?

But when those people who invest in the market encounter a bad market -- or bad luck -- and their investments fail them, what will we do for them? Let them starve? Or run up more federal debt so that they don't starve? Tough call for those who are lucky enough to be part of the "haves" instead of the "have nots".

How does taking this money out of Social Security differ from just letting those who can afford it set up IRAs? It doesn't, except now the Republicans want to create yet another program to help you manage that money that was already being managed by Social Security. Like we needed another government program?

We have a serious budget crisis -- yes, crisis -- on our hands. Taxes have no chance of ever matching outlays with the current crop of politicians running the show. Our debt is $7.6 trillion (as of today) and rising rapidly. At some points in the near future, other countries will stop lending us the money that helps us maintain this screwy fiscal policy. The crisis is here and now. Instead, while our debt burns, the Administration wants to fiddle... with the safety net for people who can least afford to lose their safety net.

Somehow I doubt that these were the "values" that Bush's supporters voted for in the recent election.

Shocking, isn't it?

Over 30% of US police departments use them. The military is having some of their rifles modified to incorporate them. Civilian versions are available for those who want them.

"Them" are stun guns. Tasers. Devices that deliver a 50,000-volt charge pulsed several times over a 5-second interval. The effects are usually debilitating, causing involuntary muscle contraction and loss of muscular control for a short period.

Amnesty International has called for more study of their effects, claiming that over 70 people have died after being shocked by these stun guns in the past four years. Several state legislators -- including ones in California and Georgia -- have called for an immediate ban of the device in their states until further study can be done.

Legal Notice: I am a very minor shareholder of a couple hundred shares of Taser International stock. You can take what I write with a grain of salt or you can do the same research yourself and come to your own conclusions about whether my position on this issue is being driven by a stock comprising less than 1% of my total assets.

Fact: Over the same four years that Amnesty International referenced for their statistic on stun gun related deaths, over 1300 people were killed by police (See Uniform Crime Report at www.fbi.gov), and the majority of those deaths were from being shot with a handgun. Didn't hear Amnesty International complain about that, did you?

And that's the crux of why Amnesty International's complaint is ridiculous. For most police departments, the choice for subduing violent subjects comes down to:

• shooting them with live bullets, which can be overkill in many situations;
• shooting them with rubber bullets, which is better for crowd control, but not good with individual subjects;
• spraying "pepper spray", which has limited effectiveness and requires the officer to be within close proximity to the subject being sprayed, leading to possible self-exposure;
• whacking them with a wood or metal baton, which is effective, but repeated whackings can be just as brutal as shooting the person in the first place;
• stun guns, which have a distance of over 20 feet and will incapacitate most subjects long enough for police to restrain the subject.

Fact: Over 150,000 people have received shocks from stun guns. At worst, 70 have died after being zapped. The relationship between being zapped with a stun gun and dying doesn't seem to be a strong one.

In almost every case, the coroners' investigations of deaths related to stun guns have found that being zapped was -- at best -- a catalyst in the subject dying and not the cause. In most cases, the subject that died after being zapped by a stun gun had injested large quantities of drugs, fought with police for a period of time, been zapped more than once while continuing to battle with police, and been in generally poor health (overweight, damage from excessive drug use, etc.). And yet people want to blame the stun gun and not the idiot fighting with police after getting hopped up on drugs.

By the way, the exact same complaint was made about pepper spray in the 1990's. Pepper spray also had been the subject of controversy when several subjects in custody died after being exposed to pepper spray. The vast majority of deaths involving a subject exposed to pepper spray were found have been caused by a number of contibuting factors, and in almost all cases, the least contributing factor was the exposure to pepper spray. (See the National Institute of Justice report on the effectiveness of pepper spray at www.ncjrs.org).

Fact: Taser's stun guns deliver 50,000 volts, but at very low amperage (averaging .0021 amps or around 100 watts of energy). For comparison, sticking your finger in a light socket can deliver over 2200 watts of energy. The charge disrupts exoskeleton muscular activity. Numerous studies have found that the amount of charge being delivered is between 1/25th and 1/40th the level that would be required to disrupt the human heart. That's a lot of room for error with most people. Several doctors have also stated that the level of charge is low enough that it would not disrupt a pacemaker.

As a friend of mine points out: stun guns are a "disruptive technology" that will become pervasive over time with police departments. Korean Air has been authorized by the FAA to allow its pilots to carry them on-board. Several European countries, including the UK, have tested and found the devices safe enough to let their police deploy them. Police departments across the USA are thrilled to use them, because they cut down on brutality claims (see: batons and live bullets, above) and officer injuries, and increase an officer's ability to safely handle violent situations where stronger force is not required.

And that's the bottom line: it's safer for both the officer and the subject than any of the other lethal or non-lethal alternatives available to officers. It's also more effective than any of the alternatives for apprehending the subject without causing lasting damage.

A maximum of 70 deaths out of 150,000 uses seems like a better choice to me than any of the alternatives. But Amnesty International and a few state legislators come out against it.

I'm stunned, really.

Gay Marriage and Other Forms of Discrimination

In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the "Defense of Marriage Act", which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman and permitted states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages. Since then, 37 states have also added laws or amendments to their constitution defining marriage the same way. And now President Bush is ready to endorse a constitutional amendment along these same lines.

The usual arguments for these laws and amendments goes something like this: it's always been this way, we want to preserve the "sanctity" or "sacredness" of marriage, we have to think of the children, we want to strengthen families. These arguments are both meaningful and nonsensical. Let's take them one at a time:

1. It's always been this way: actually, it hasn't. Bigamy and polygamy was the rule as far back as the Book of Genesis, when Jacob married both Leah and Rachel. But we don't have that now. Women used to be considered "property" in a marriage, but that's not the case any longer, either. Progress marches on, regardless of whether people want to acknowledge it. Inter-racial marriages used to be against the law as well. At some point, people need to stop justifying blatant wrongs in the name of "it's always been that way".

2. Preserving the "sanctity" of marriage: in the eyes of many religions, marriage is a sacred covenant between those getting married and God. I actually agree with this view, although can't understand why two of God's people of the same sex cannot also enter into this covenant. Certainly, those that quote Biblical ramblings about homosexuality being an abomination are aware that the same section of the Bible also prohibits wearing clothes of more than one type of thread and the admonishment that you should stone your wife to death for adultery. Do these people consider those Biblical laws just as meaningful or are they cherry-picking the Bible to make their point?

Another point about the sanctity of marriage is that today marriage has two components: a legal one and a religious one. In order to be married in this country, you only need the legal component (which includes the marriage license and a judge or other public servant to perform the wedding ceremony). No one has ever suggested that same-sex marriages should be forced on the church; indeed the Constitution would prohibit the state from enforcing that. However, the legal component of marriage is one defined and maintained by the state. As such, it should be open to all citizens of all faiths. And all couples, both heterosexual and homosexual.

3. Thinking of children: this point is shockingly illogical. Today, homosexual couples can adopt children in some states or go outside the USA to adopt children. However, because the homosexual couple is not permitted to be married, the child can only be adopted by one person in the couple. The other person in the couple has no legal rights. If the adopting person dies, the state would have to step in and remove the child from the home. How exactly is this "thinking of children"? It seems more like those that don't want homosexual marriages are specifically ANTI-children.

4. We want to strengthen families: this argument makes no sense. Heterosexual couples divorce at a rate of 50%. How exactly does denying homosexuals marriage rights change that statistic? Will more heterosexuals stay together? Will they have fewer kids out of wedlock? No and no. The argument is an emotional one with absolutely no logic behind it.

Finally, some people are just hung up on using the word "marriage" to describe a homosexual union. Again, they are viewing "marriage" in religious terms and not civil law terms. Homosexual couples are not seeking to change religious marriage -- although some religions are willing to embrace same-sex unions -- but to change the state-sponsored civil marriage.

It's about time that people stopped discriminating against the minorities in our population just because they're "not like me".

Bashing the ACLU

Why is the ACLU sometimes used as a punching bag for so-called "liberal values"?

In the 1988 Presidential campaign, then-Vice President George Bush referred to his opponent Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." Not only did this charge -- along with the Willie Horton scare -- effectively brand Dukakis as a "leftist", but it also helped establish Bush's conservative credentials.

Recently, the ACLU's membership base has grown dramatically, mostly as a response to the attacks on civil rights by current President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Membership includes prominent members from both sides of the political spectrum. What changed?

For the ACLU, not much has changed. It's charge has always been to defend the Bill of Rights, usually in high profile cases and also regularly on the unpopular side of an issue.

For example, the ACLU is currently defending NAMBLA -- the North American Man/Boy Love Association -- and its members from a wrongful death suit in Massachusetts. The case was filed by the parents of a 10-year-old boy who was kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death by a man who was a visitor to the NAMBLA web site and who claimed that that's why he did it. NAMBLA advocates that a loving sexual relationship between adult men and minor children should not be against the law. As repulsive as this position might be to the majority of people in the world, NAMBLA is entitled to their views and to publish their views provided they do not encourage breaking the law, which the NAMBLA site does not. The ACLU took this case as a first amendment, free-speech rights case.

Another example: in Tampa, Florida, the courts held that a husband could remove the feeding tube and allow his wife to die. His wife had been in a persistent vegetative state with minimal brain functionality for over 10 years. In response to the outcome of the trial and subsequent appeals (including appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court), all of which held that the husband has this right, the Florida Legislature hastily created and passed a law allowing the governor to override the husband's wishes. The governor signed the bill into law and the woman's feeding tube was re-inserted over the wishes of both the husband and the courts. The ACLU has stepped into this case on the side of the husband, a position that caused an uproar from people who believe that life is sacred and must be maintained as long as possible at all costs.

In both of these cases -- and many others not listed here -- numerous people believe the ACLU should just "butt out" and abandon their unpopular positions.

I find these people -- mostly respectable conservatives -- to be curious. Are our rights only to be defended when the cause is a popular one? Of course not; if so, then when it comes time to defend my unpopular position -- or YOUR unpopular position -- you won't have this advocate on your side. Our rights truly need a vociferous defense when we're on the minority side of an argument or court case.

Why is the ACLU gaining in popularity now?

In response to the U.S. Patriot Act, which granted the government additional abilities to investigate and arrest our citizens in this so-called "War on Terrorism", people from all sides of the political spectrum are worried that these rights will be abused. Numerous local governments are also refusing to cooperate with the Federal Government to enforce some of the more odious portions of the Patriot Act. The government has been attempting for several months to get Congress to amend this law to grant further government powers in this "War", while removing much of the oversight to prevent abuse of these powers. Attorney General John Ashcroft's reputation as a religious zealot hasn't helped with anyone's view of the government's position, either.

Because the Bush Administration is increasingly trying to limit the rights available to all citizens under the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's popularity is rising again (only $20 to join). People are rightfully afraid that a joke or a nasty word against the government will make them a target of their newly granted powers. We need defenders like the ACLU to help keep the government's power in check.

On Deficits and Debts

The 2003 federal deficit soared to $375 billion. A quick census check and you'll see that your portion of that deficit is about $1450. That's not $1450 you get to pocket, by the way. That's what your government spent on your behalf without collecting matching revenues.

Our national debt -- not the budget deficit, but what our government has borrowed in order to continue to operate -- is currently $6.8 TRILLION and growing daily with no end in sight and no political plans to change our government revenues or spending policies.

A quick perspective on this $6.8 trillion: our total economy is currently running along at a $10.4 trillion pace. In other words, the amount of money changing hands in our economy is $10.8 trillion. According to the government, to pay off our debt, every man, woman, and child in America would have to write a check for over $23,000 to the Internal Revenue Service. Have you started to write your check yet? Thought not.

Our debt is basically like the mortgage you obtained on your house or car. You bought the car and can use it, but someone else lent you the money and you'll need to pay it off at some point with interest. That "someone" is funding your debt.

Our federal debt is funded two ways: as bonds -- they're also called Treasury Bills or T-Bills -- sold on the open market, and as IOUs written to other entities of the government that aren't behind on paying their bills. In the case of our $6.8 trillion debt, $3.9 trillion is funded by bonds and $2.9 trillion is funded by borrowing from other agencies of the federal government.

What other agency in the government has that kind of money to lend? The Social Security Administration is the biggest source. In other words, the government is borrowing from the same funds that you were planning to get when you retire. Think of this as the same tactic as IBM borrowing money from its pension fund to fund its marketing department. In the case of the federal government, though, this activity is considered "legal".

So what's wrong with a little deficit spending, especially in times of crisis? In the short-term, not a whole lot as long as you have the revenue to pay off your debts, just like you'd need to pay off your credit cards.

The long-term, though, is another matter. If your government borrows too much so that the people funding that debt -- the creditors -- lose faith in your ability to re-pay the debt, then your cost of borrowing goes up. In this case, the T-bill rate would increase.

Why is a T-Bill rate increase bad? Because all other loans in our economy are related to this T-bill rate. In other words, your home mortgage rates will go up, credit card rates will go up, car loan rates will go up, and corporate lending rates will go up. In our economy, increasing interest rates would be like throwing an anchor into the water while driving your speedboat. And we start to look to the rest of the world like Argentina, which also cannot pay its debts, so no one wants to lend them money to get their economy out of the pits.

"But we just had a budget surplus, didn't we?" you ask. In a word: no. The federal government has spent more on its operations each year SINCE 1960 than it has collected from the citizens funding the government.

"So where'd the surplus go?" you ask. Remember the part where I mentioned that the government borrows from Social Security to pay for part of the debt? Well, that's what they did those years: Social Security surplusses -- which would have been used to pay for benefits in the future and are NOT considered part of the government's operating budget -- was included in the "revenues" collected to pay for operating the government, and that's how we had a "surplus".

However, that leaves Social Security vulnerable. In the coming decades, we'll have many more people needing to receive Social Security benefits than will be paying into the pool to fund those benefits. Social Security is NOT a savings account -- much to the annoyance of many Republicans now. It was designed from the beginning to be a "pay as you go" system of providing benefits to people who were past the age when they would be able to work. In the 1930's, the average age of dying was around 65; now it's over 75, but the Social Security "retirement age" hasn't changed (yet), so benefits are being paid out at a much faster rate than the government anticipated or designed the program to handle. Without changing the retirement age or limiting benefits, Social Security will need to have those IOUs paid back AND borrow a significant amount in coming years. In other words, Social Security's long-term health is based on the premise that the federal government will be able to pay back those IOUs, which it can't do without causing the deficit to balloon even more.

Besides being bad for interest rates in the long-term, large government debts are also bad because we have to pay interest on that debt every year. Our current interest payments each year total $318 billion. That $318 billion is also just about what we spend currently to operate the Department of Defense and our military. It's the second largest portion of the federal government's budget each year (behind welfare and other income redistribution projects).

That $318 billion could be better spent on tax cuts -- oh, wait, we're already spending $500 billion more than we're collecting, so that's no longer an option.

I've also heard the argument that the deficit is not so bad, because it's a small percentage of our GDP. Two questions for those who subscribe to this economic view: (1) is our government's debt ALSO a small percentage of our GDP; (2) do we tax our GDP to fund the government or do we tax individual income and corporate profits? Here's some answers: (1) the debt is over 60% of our GDP, which is definitely not small; and (2) we do not tax the country's GDP, which also includes spending.

Republicans like to fault "tax and spend" Democrats for our budget problems. Here's the most important fact to remember about our continuing budget deficits: since 1969, Democrats have held the White House for only 12 years, while Republicans -- the so-called fiscal conservatives -- have held it for over 20 years. No spending has gone on without Presidential approval and no Republican president has ever tried to slow Congress' yearly budget bills. If Democrats are the "tax and spend" party, then Republicans must be the "spend... and then spend your kids' money for good measure" party.

There's really only one good answer to the problem of our debt: raise taxes to pay our bills. It's that simple. Our government commitments to income redistribution projects and the military COMBINED WITH OUR LARGE INTEREST PAYMENTS restrict its ability to operate effectively without additional revenues. The so-called discretionary portion of our federal budget is now smaller than the size of the deficit, so cutting all of that is no longer a viable option. And "trickle-down economics" -- the theory whereby tax cuts spur additional spending, which generates more taxes than you cut -- has been proven false TWICE now.

Have you written your $23,000 check yet??

The Truth About ANWR

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeast corner of Alaska. The area under consideration for oil drilling by the Bush Administration and its minions in Congress is The Coastal Plain, a sliver of land on the northern coast of ANWR, less than 100 miles to the east of Prudhoe Bay (Prudhoe Bay, by the way, currently pumps about one million barrels per day of oil for use within the USA.) The Coastal Plain measures about 100 miles long and 30 miles wide, comprises about 1.5 million acres of land (out of 19 million total acres in the ANWR).

Yes, there's quite a bit of wildlife in The Coastal Plain: waterfowl and caribou are common in the area. But they are also common at Prudhoe Bay, where drilling and pumping stations have been designed to co-exist with the wildlife.

A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that more than 10 billion barrels of oil could be found under the Coastal Plain. If the US were to start granting leases for drilling TODAY, it would take at least 15 years for the oil and natural gas would reach the market. So ANWR is not a viable short-term energy policy.

It also isn't really a viable long-term policy. The Dept. Of Energy estimates that at its peak, we could pump 1.35 million barrels of oil from the Coastal Plain. At that rate, the reserves up there would be depleted in 20 years and then we would be right back where we started.

What are the facts about our oil needs?

The USA consumes more than 16 million barrels of oil PER DAY. Of that, we produce about 6 million barrels and import the rest. From where, you ask? Our primary import source is Saudi Arabia (2 million barrels), followed closely behind by Canada (who knew?), then Mexico and Venezuela (1.5 million). Before the war, we were obtaining about 600,000 barrels of oil from Iraq each day, but that's stopped now.

The DOE estimates that by 2025 without some change in energy policy, the USA will be consuming about 25 million barrels of oil per day. So what ANWR offers is merely a drop in the bucket of what we need. The oil being piped from Prudhoe Bay is already slowing, as that reserve is being depleted.

So ANWR's oil is needed, and -- surprising myself -- I think we ought to go ahead and begin drilling it using the same techniques we're using only 100 miles from there. However, an overall energy policy of conservation is needed more and environmentalists are right to hold up drilling until we can figure out how to reduce our dependence on oil. The Bush Administration isn't interested in that so much; they have too many ties to the oil suppliers and processors to consider realistic alternatives to our oil usage.

We have too many cars guzzling too many gallons of fuel, lots of older and less efficient airplanes flying around, and not enough focus on how to change that. For you free-marketers, the free market won't seriously address any issue involving radical change until it becomes a crisis and there's more money to be made on it at the expense of the consumers.

I'm not going to recommend an alternative to oil -- too much of our economy is based on it -- but I would suggest we need a concerted effort -- including tax incentives, both positive and negative -- on a USA level to reduce our dependence on oil by half before an energy crisis looms too large and crashes our economy. ANWR can be one helpful part of that effort... but not a signficant part.


The sites that helped provide the information behind my opinions:
http://www.anwr.org/ (a pro-drilling group)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ (Dept. Of Energy web site)

The SUV Threat

I hate Sport Utility Vehicles. It's that simple. SUVs are the fastest growing segment of automotive passenger vehicles in the USA. People buy them because they're easier for carpooling kids, toting the dog, and can be pretty stylish as well. However, in my town, I mostly see SUVs riding around with exactly one person in each.

Congress regulates SUVs like regular passenger automobiles, even though they are actually just modified pick-up trucks. The monster SUV's -- the Lincoln Navigator, Cadillac Escalade, and such -- are actually afforded a special status so that small business owners can purchase them and receive tax breaks.

Let me count the ways that I despise SUVs:

1. As a group, they consume more gasoline per mile than any other passenger vehicle. By consuming more gasoline, they also produce more pollution.

What's ironic about this problem is that Detroit and Japan have the ability to increase the miles-per-gallon (MPG) rating on their SUVs, but are not being pushed to do so. How can they do that? Composite materials and more efficient engines are already available and reasonably priced -- some automobiles and trucks already use these improvements -- but Detroit won't change until pushed.

Detroit also wasn't keen about seat belts or air bags. In fact, they fought both initiatives, claiming that "jobs would be lost" and "cars would be too pricey for people to afford". Both arguments turned out to be wrong. Detroit used these arguments again when pressed by Congress to increase their MPG ratings on their SUVs. Congress caved. Both arguments are actually just lies. Air bags added less than $2000 to the price of a car and jobs were actually added to make the air bags. People don't automatically buy the cheapest car or stop buying cars when they get slightly more expensive, so volume isn't lost if all the manufacturers have to play on the same level playing field.

Detroit also uses the argument that "people don't want better gas mileage or else we'd do it". This is a specious argument. Detroit won't do anything unless they are forced to or unless they have to do it to keep up with their competitors. But, they're right: the average person isn't as concerned about their gas mileage because of cheap gas here in the USA. The average person also wasn't so concerned about air bags or seat belts, regardless of how studies showed they would save lives. Perhaps if we weren't so dependent on oil, we would be saving our soldier's lives by not worrying so much about the Middle East.

2. The bumper on an SUV is situated about 6" or more higher than the bumper on a standard automobile. In any accident between an SUV and an automobile, if the SUV initiates the accident -- which is most often -- the automobile loses the battle, as does the automobile driver.

In most multi-vehicle collisions, the SUV rider -- if the SUV doesn't flip over and if the passengers are wearing seat belts -- are significantly more likely to survive the crash. The automobile owner, regardless of seat belt, is significantly more likely to die in the crash. In a SUV front-to-car side crash, SUV bumpers are high enough that they will actually pass into the automobile's passenger compartment. Having a side air bag won't help much in that instance.

Congress is now working to change this situation. Hopefully, Detroit doesn't scuttle it, but it still won't account for the millions of SUVs already on the road. Contact your congressman and let him/her know that you want to be safe when you drive a car.

3. SUVs are prone to rolling over in most emergency maneuvers. Additionally, if an SUV sideswipes a standard guardrail, the SUV will usually flip over it and tumble down the hill.

Well, ok, if you're driving at 10 mph and have to do an emergency maneuver, you're probably safe in an SUV. Otherwise, be ready to flip.

People have to receive a special license to drive a commercial truck or a vehicle larger than a normal passenger vehicle. We ought to demand the same from SUV drivers. Make them go through a course that teaches them not to tailgate or make fast lane changes. Make sure that no one under the age of 18 can drive one; teenagers driving SUVs are the single biggest danger on the road today.


I'm not an "SUV Terrorist", nor do I know any of them. I just know that SUVs are the wrong answer to almost any automobile purchasing question. If you need to carpool, get a mini-van, which rides lower to the ground and usually gets better gas mileage.