I enjoy reading the continuing conservative and liberal commentaries relating the Great Depression of the 1930's to our Great Repression today. One aspect of my enjoyment relates to how each side selectively presents data to buttress its positions.
Some ruminations:
I fail to understand why former President Clinton bears any blame whatsoever for the present economic mess, as vigorously promoted by some conservative commentators. (Yes, his sexual morals demand opprobrium that should lead to guild and then to repentance.)
Admittedly, the Clinton Administration passed the legislation encouraging/forcing banks and other lending institutions to write home mortgages for people who didn't, or only marginally, qualify under more traditional criteria. I am confident that some loan officers inappropriately pushed these loans on the applicants, in effect encouraging them to purchase homes with values beyond the reach of the applicants to pay. The decision to accept the mortgages nevertheless was solely the applicants' responsibilities. The situation is much like an overweight person's decision to continue eating to excess: No one makes the overeating persons put food in their mouths. We have free will but with it comes responsibility.
Furthermore, if my conservative brothers and sisters believe this Clinton program was inappropriate, why didn't we hear from them during the succeeding eight years of the George W. Bush administration? Even if countervailing legislation proposed by the conservatives had not passed through Congress, the Bush Administration still had the bully pulpit and could have tried to mobilize public opinion. At least my conservative brothers and sisters would have been firmly on the record as opposing this "inappropriate" misguidance of mortgage policy rather sounding like a bunch of retrospective blame shifters.
What is the real reason there was no countervailing legislation during the GWB administration? I suspect politics of the most callous type: (1) The program was popular with a broad segment of the population, including normally conservative people at the lending institutions eager to profit from the situation and the conservatives didn't wish to antagonize these new homeowners, and (2) The conservatives properly realized that, as liberal leaning voters become property owners saddled with mortgages and other homeowner responsibilities, these liberal leaning new homeowners tend to become more conservative and vote Republican.
My liberal brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party once again have become confused about economic reality and "good works" with the so-called stimulus bill. (Actually, I like the term "Prokulus" bill that one conservative brother applied to the legislation." As I will argue in a subsequent post, the application of Keynesian economic theory - increased governmental spending including deficits - actually blunted the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930's and other recessions prior to this one. The stimulus bill, if "pure", would have been expected to do the same for this Great Recession. (There's no need to try to "educate" me on this point until after my next post.)
What did the Democratic Liberals do that has jeopardized the clean application of Keynesian economics? The Democrats loaded up the stimulus bill with an inordinate amount of "good works" projects. Now, don't get me wrong. Some (a few, many, most - take your pick) of these "good works" have arguable merit and should be funded. The problem is that the funds for these non-stimulatory "good works" were included in the stimulus bill rather than having been debated as separate funding authorizations. Shame on the Democrats in Congress and shame on President Obama for allowing this perversion.
I very much enjoy the Republican bluster about President Obama's forthcoming budget in which he proposes to restore taxation on individuals making more than $200,000, about 1 % of all taxpayers, I believe. President G W Bush's administration essentially wiped out, or massively reduced, the tax burden these affluent persons payed in an attempt to apply "trickle-down" economic theory. That is, these individuals, relieved of their tax burden, would subsequently and quite naturally use their increased funds for investments that would stimulate the economy.
Unfortunately, the GW Bush administration not only failed to reduce governmental spending but increased it and incurred massive deficits. Let us look at the data: A significant budgetary surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration, a humongous mutli-trillion dollar deficit at the end of the GW Administration. The data are irrefutable. Clearly, "trickle-down" economics don't work without accompanying reductions in budgetary spending.
Don't posit the War on Terrorism (for lack of a better term, and which includes the Iraq, Afghanistan, and other worldwide conflicts as the reason for the deficits because the costs involve only about 10% of the deficits of the GW Bush years.)
As a penultimate comment before I have my afternoon cocktail: Would someone please explain to me why the interest we pay on the national debt (about 1 in 10 taxpayer dollars at the present time) is not equivalent to paying increased taxes to keep the budget in equilibrium?)
Finally, I hope that my conservative and liberal brothers and sisters (including myself) will remember Einstein's dictum: Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I feel the need for the euphoric effect of, at least, 3 oz of sour mash.
Blessings to all.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wonderful Worship Experience
We had a wonderful worship experience today at Georgetown First United Church. The chancel choir performed two special numbers and the large hand bell choir played a moving piece. As usual, the sermon was outstanding and the fellowship awesome. The highlight of the service, however, was the baptism of a young father and his small daughter.
The wife and mother, obviously pregnant with her second child, was baptized and joined the church last year while her husband served in Iraq. Now that he's back, the husband/father wanted to join the church. The couple tried to hold their willful and inquisitive young daughter throughout the two baptisms. Things went rather well for the father's ceremony, despite the daughter's activity. When the time came for the daughter's baptism, she fussed and squirmed to get out of her parents' arms. Finally, the parents allowed the little girl to stand on the floor in front of the baptismal font and she behaved very well. The minister realized that the child would pitch a hissey-fit if anyone tried to pick her up for the ceremony.
The minister announced, "Alright, we'll do it her way," and he and the assistant minister knelt on the floor at the child's level and performed the ceremony, which the little girl tolerated quite well. The parents remained standing, probably in a state of high anxiety. Once the post-baptismal prayer was completed, the minister said, "Let's see if she'll let us show her to the congregation." He put the child in his arms without her protesting and carried her up and down the isles of the sanctuary, all the time gently bouncing her up, down, and from side to side. The little girl obviously enjoyed the experience.
After the service, Andrea remarked how the episode illustrated the openness of this congregation and ministerial staff. I thought the same and, also, that the experience provided a modern day example of how Jesus reaches out to people in their particular circumstances to give his listeners precisely what they need to hear in order to come into the Kingdom of God.
I'm thinking specifically about the post-Resurrection experience of Thomas. Many people erroneously believe this episode teaches us not to doubt, i.e., not to be "Doubting Thomases". I think the meaning is much deeper. Jesus provided Thomas with exactly what Thomas needed in order to accept the Resurrection of his Lord and Savior. So what if Thomas acted like an early day scientist by insisting upon hard data? That's what Jesus provided. At least Thomas did actually put his fingers in Jesus' wounds but I suspect Thomas clearly saw them.
Wonderful day!
Blessings to all.
The wife and mother, obviously pregnant with her second child, was baptized and joined the church last year while her husband served in Iraq. Now that he's back, the husband/father wanted to join the church. The couple tried to hold their willful and inquisitive young daughter throughout the two baptisms. Things went rather well for the father's ceremony, despite the daughter's activity. When the time came for the daughter's baptism, she fussed and squirmed to get out of her parents' arms. Finally, the parents allowed the little girl to stand on the floor in front of the baptismal font and she behaved very well. The minister realized that the child would pitch a hissey-fit if anyone tried to pick her up for the ceremony.
The minister announced, "Alright, we'll do it her way," and he and the assistant minister knelt on the floor at the child's level and performed the ceremony, which the little girl tolerated quite well. The parents remained standing, probably in a state of high anxiety. Once the post-baptismal prayer was completed, the minister said, "Let's see if she'll let us show her to the congregation." He put the child in his arms without her protesting and carried her up and down the isles of the sanctuary, all the time gently bouncing her up, down, and from side to side. The little girl obviously enjoyed the experience.
After the service, Andrea remarked how the episode illustrated the openness of this congregation and ministerial staff. I thought the same and, also, that the experience provided a modern day example of how Jesus reaches out to people in their particular circumstances to give his listeners precisely what they need to hear in order to come into the Kingdom of God.
I'm thinking specifically about the post-Resurrection experience of Thomas. Many people erroneously believe this episode teaches us not to doubt, i.e., not to be "Doubting Thomases". I think the meaning is much deeper. Jesus provided Thomas with exactly what Thomas needed in order to accept the Resurrection of his Lord and Savior. So what if Thomas acted like an early day scientist by insisting upon hard data? That's what Jesus provided. At least Thomas did actually put his fingers in Jesus' wounds but I suspect Thomas clearly saw them.
Wonderful day!
Blessings to all.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Second Post of the day: Stimulus Ruminations
One aspect of current reality demonstrates that we now have a massive "stimulus" bill ready for President Obama's signiture. That is, we have a purported (pejorative, ostensible, claimed, idiotic, rational - choose your descriptor) economic stimulus ready to be applied, whether or not we agree with the concept and its execution.
We could argue that our economy would "ultimately" recover without the stimulus bill or at least with a massively reduced one. Politics derived from the sentiment of the population, however, mandates that something be done. I only hope that we're not in an economic "death spiral" that will lead to a "crash and burn" outcome.
I am aware of the controversy about whether or not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal spending actually lead to economic recovery. I'll comment on this issue with a later posting. The interpretation depends upon the data used and time at which the data relate.
Neither conservative nor liberal members of Congress or, as well, a large number of "talking heads" and economic "experts" distinguished themselves in constructing and passing this massive bill.
My liberal brothers and sisters clearly put too many spending measures in the bill, measures that may promote worthy outcomes and programs but are difficult to link to the desired economic stimulus. We observed the usual liberal Democratic fixation with social goals. To a large extent, I define these spending programs as forced charitable strictures. (More about this concept later.)
My conservative brothers and sisters had an overwrought focus on reducing taxes, in my opinion related to the wrong socioeconomic classes. The conservative Republican fixation on cutting taxes on persons with high incomes to produce a "trickle-down" effect to stimulate the economy clearly did not work during the eight years of President George W. Bush's tenure. Yes, I know the theory (more an hypothesis than a theory) sounds good but, come on, the deficit was $5 trillion dollars at the beginning of President Bush's administration and $10 trillion at the end. Why? Because my conservative brothers and sisters in Congress and the administration didn't control, much less cut, budgetary spending along with the tax cuts. Also, don't raise the issue of costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These expenses accounted for a relatively small part of our GDP and annual budgets. (I'm not talking about the entire defense budget, only the expenses directly related to the two wars.)
In view of my earlier posting today, I'm not so much interested in assigning blame to individuals for economic mess as I am in exploring the past in order to "fix" things in the future. Therefore, the following is not blame-assignment as much as a lesson: If my conservative brothers and sisters believe the bulk of the spending in President Bush's administration resulted from liberal Democratic "budget-busting", we must ask - "How many budget bills did President Bush veto?" I can recall only one. Yes, the Democratic legislative majorities might have overridden all of President Bush's vetoes but he had the "bully pulpit" and could have attempted to influence public opinion and, thereby, legislative outcomes. The lesson for the future relates to Presidents using the "bully pulpit". Now, regardless of whether or not we agree with President Obama, he is using the "bully pulpit".
A significant part of our economic problems derives from a system of taxation that has outlived its usefulness in the 21st Century. As an hypothesis, a progressive income-basis for taxation might be relevant provided: (1) There are no exceptions/exemptions whatsoever, except for issues directly related to our national defense, (2) spending must be rigorously controlled.
As a relevant aside, I will comment on "wealth redistribution", a criticism against President Obama leveled by my conservative brothers and sisters. Let's get real. Anyone who has ever owned a home, especially one financed through a mortgage, participates in "wealth redistribution" through significant tax breaks. We may ague that a budget is too high or too low but once passed, the money to pay for that budget must come from taxpayers. Home owners, through their various deductions/credits/etc., force other segments of taxpayers to make up the difference lost to the IRS. That, my brothers and sisters, is "wealth redistribution" on a grand scale. Widespread home ownership may be a laudable goal (which can be argued, however) but the owners should pay, not other segments of the tax paying population. The same thing goes for so-called "corporate welfare".
I think the present income tax system has been corrupted beyond "fixing". The time has come for serious consideration of a modified system that might incorporate elements of a national sales tax and a flat rate income tax. I candidly admit that a sales tax in our current economic situation would not generate the requisite income; however, budgets could be cut and we could engage in the Keynesian approach of running manageable deficits leading to spending stimuli on the economy, at which time growth/re-growth could generate funds to reduce the deficit and balance budgets.
With respect to budgets (national, state, local), I object to what I've termed, "forced charity". Much of our social spending may be for worthy causes such as health care for the indigent, distribution of vaccines, unemployment insurance, etc. What I object to is being forced to participate in these programs. I believe the bulk of our "charitable endeavors" should come through the Community of Believers, not governmental taxation. (And by the way, I think churches/religious organizations should receive no taxation exemptions.)
I firmly agree that some programs can best be managed and the benefits distributed through appropriate governmental action. Nevertheless, we should be careful about this process.
Again, perseverantia usque ad finem – perseverance to the end
We could argue that our economy would "ultimately" recover without the stimulus bill or at least with a massively reduced one. Politics derived from the sentiment of the population, however, mandates that something be done. I only hope that we're not in an economic "death spiral" that will lead to a "crash and burn" outcome.
I am aware of the controversy about whether or not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal spending actually lead to economic recovery. I'll comment on this issue with a later posting. The interpretation depends upon the data used and time at which the data relate.
Neither conservative nor liberal members of Congress or, as well, a large number of "talking heads" and economic "experts" distinguished themselves in constructing and passing this massive bill.
My liberal brothers and sisters clearly put too many spending measures in the bill, measures that may promote worthy outcomes and programs but are difficult to link to the desired economic stimulus. We observed the usual liberal Democratic fixation with social goals. To a large extent, I define these spending programs as forced charitable strictures. (More about this concept later.)
My conservative brothers and sisters had an overwrought focus on reducing taxes, in my opinion related to the wrong socioeconomic classes. The conservative Republican fixation on cutting taxes on persons with high incomes to produce a "trickle-down" effect to stimulate the economy clearly did not work during the eight years of President George W. Bush's tenure. Yes, I know the theory (more an hypothesis than a theory) sounds good but, come on, the deficit was $5 trillion dollars at the beginning of President Bush's administration and $10 trillion at the end. Why? Because my conservative brothers and sisters in Congress and the administration didn't control, much less cut, budgetary spending along with the tax cuts. Also, don't raise the issue of costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These expenses accounted for a relatively small part of our GDP and annual budgets. (I'm not talking about the entire defense budget, only the expenses directly related to the two wars.)
In view of my earlier posting today, I'm not so much interested in assigning blame to individuals for economic mess as I am in exploring the past in order to "fix" things in the future. Therefore, the following is not blame-assignment as much as a lesson: If my conservative brothers and sisters believe the bulk of the spending in President Bush's administration resulted from liberal Democratic "budget-busting", we must ask - "How many budget bills did President Bush veto?" I can recall only one. Yes, the Democratic legislative majorities might have overridden all of President Bush's vetoes but he had the "bully pulpit" and could have attempted to influence public opinion and, thereby, legislative outcomes. The lesson for the future relates to Presidents using the "bully pulpit". Now, regardless of whether or not we agree with President Obama, he is using the "bully pulpit".
A significant part of our economic problems derives from a system of taxation that has outlived its usefulness in the 21st Century. As an hypothesis, a progressive income-basis for taxation might be relevant provided: (1) There are no exceptions/exemptions whatsoever, except for issues directly related to our national defense, (2) spending must be rigorously controlled.
As a relevant aside, I will comment on "wealth redistribution", a criticism against President Obama leveled by my conservative brothers and sisters. Let's get real. Anyone who has ever owned a home, especially one financed through a mortgage, participates in "wealth redistribution" through significant tax breaks. We may ague that a budget is too high or too low but once passed, the money to pay for that budget must come from taxpayers. Home owners, through their various deductions/credits/etc., force other segments of taxpayers to make up the difference lost to the IRS. That, my brothers and sisters, is "wealth redistribution" on a grand scale. Widespread home ownership may be a laudable goal (which can be argued, however) but the owners should pay, not other segments of the tax paying population. The same thing goes for so-called "corporate welfare".
I think the present income tax system has been corrupted beyond "fixing". The time has come for serious consideration of a modified system that might incorporate elements of a national sales tax and a flat rate income tax. I candidly admit that a sales tax in our current economic situation would not generate the requisite income; however, budgets could be cut and we could engage in the Keynesian approach of running manageable deficits leading to spending stimuli on the economy, at which time growth/re-growth could generate funds to reduce the deficit and balance budgets.
With respect to budgets (national, state, local), I object to what I've termed, "forced charity". Much of our social spending may be for worthy causes such as health care for the indigent, distribution of vaccines, unemployment insurance, etc. What I object to is being forced to participate in these programs. I believe the bulk of our "charitable endeavors" should come through the Community of Believers, not governmental taxation. (And by the way, I think churches/religious organizations should receive no taxation exemptions.)
I firmly agree that some programs can best be managed and the benefits distributed through appropriate governmental action. Nevertheless, we should be careful about this process.
Again, perseverantia usque ad finem – perseverance to the end
President Bush and President Obama
I have detected a similarity or an analogy between former President George W. Bush and President Obama.
Many, if not most, of my liberal friends had, or still have, a disturbing tendency to define President Bush as an uneducated, unintelligent good ol’ boy from Texas. I suspect that much of this criticism or even downright hostility resulted from the fact that President Bush does not speak well in public unless he closely follows a prepared script. That is, he does not appear to have great verbal skills, certainly not to the extent that many academics expect or want in our leaders. The model for these academics appears to be Mr. Tony Blair and other politicians who grew up in the UK parliamentary system that highly values verbal skills, the sharp give and take of debates. This lack of verbal ability coupled with President Bush’s titular conservatism resulted in many liberals calling him an idiot.
I usually respond to this unfair description in the following fashion: President Bush’s admittance to Yale University may have resulted primarily from his “patrician” or East Coast family background and Yale family heritage. I doubt, however, he would have received a “heritage” pass on his grades. He did graduate from Yale, albeit not with the most distinguished academic record. I fail to understand that he would have been admitted to Harvard Business School as a “heritage” student, and he did earn an MBA from that illustrious institution. Again, to think the faculty would have given him an unearned pass defies reality. Finally, an unintelligent person does not learn to fly a high performance fighter jet fighter – and live. This blog entry is not the forum to discuss whether or not President Bush faithfully fulfilled his military obligations to the Air Force in response to his training and commission.
My criticism of President Bush’s intellectual abilities focus on two aspects: He is intellectually incurious and, and with respect to his advisers/top members of his administration, he placed a higher premium on personal loyalty to him and his family than on competence and a realistic view of history relating to current events.
Now to President Obama. Many, if not most, of my conservative friends define President Obama as an “empty suit”, a creation of the purported liberal media. That is, President Obama supposedly does not have a great intellectual capacity or his purported policies arise from a deficient and non-intellectual view of history and current reality.
My response to these assertions is as follows: The future President Obama graduated from Columbia University, which many people would consider on a par with Yale University. He earned a law degree from a prestigious law school, Harvard. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Neither of these higher-level academic institutions would have given the future President Obama a race-related free “pass”. Accordingly, President Obama must be considered intellectually capable to a high degree and not an “empty suit”, leaving aside for the purposes of this post any comments about the claimed idiocy of his purported liberal agenda. Furthermore, suppose President Obama is a “creature of the media”. >If so, he demonstrated considerable smarts in manipulating the media to support him, keeping in mind the dearth of his previous legislative accomplishments in Illinois and in the US Senate. I suspect he saw his moment and seized it.
My conservative brothers and sisters should realize that the primary operating principle of the media, even the ostensible liberal segments, is disbelief in what is put before them. That is, even today, most of the media are reasonably rational skeptics, although often approaching issues from different perspectives. (To see this point, look at the panel debates on CNN, FOX, and PBS.)
If conservatives believe President Obama’s liberal and socialistic agenda will “destroy” our free enterprise system and this country as we know it, then my conservative brothers and sisters should really be concerned because we have a truly smart and manipulative person leading this country to damnation. That is, conservatives should not consider President Obama to be a trivial force.
I think my conservative brothers and sisters will have the same degree of success in pushing the claim of an “empty suit” and liberal destroyer of this great country for President Obama as did my liberal brothers and sisters with their claim that President Bush is an idiot whose conservative principles could have led/did lead to the economic and moral destruction of our country.
Liberals and conservatives, as is appropriate, are engaged in a contest for the soul and future of this country; however, we should be clear about the terms of engagement. As my liberal brothers and sisters under estimated President Bush, my conservative brothers and sisters should neither under nor over estimate President Obama. Finally, I suggest all parties to the current contest focus on presenting reasoned proposals, not character invectives and endless discussions about the past.
George Santayana did say that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of the past will repeat the errors of the past. And, yes, Einstein did say that insanity consists of doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. But, assigning blame for past mistakes has less value than proposals to correct past mistakes and move the country forward.
Perseverantia usque ad finem – Perseverance to the end
Many, if not most, of my liberal friends had, or still have, a disturbing tendency to define President Bush as an uneducated, unintelligent good ol’ boy from Texas. I suspect that much of this criticism or even downright hostility resulted from the fact that President Bush does not speak well in public unless he closely follows a prepared script. That is, he does not appear to have great verbal skills, certainly not to the extent that many academics expect or want in our leaders. The model for these academics appears to be Mr. Tony Blair and other politicians who grew up in the UK parliamentary system that highly values verbal skills, the sharp give and take of debates. This lack of verbal ability coupled with President Bush’s titular conservatism resulted in many liberals calling him an idiot.
I usually respond to this unfair description in the following fashion: President Bush’s admittance to Yale University may have resulted primarily from his “patrician” or East Coast family background and Yale family heritage. I doubt, however, he would have received a “heritage” pass on his grades. He did graduate from Yale, albeit not with the most distinguished academic record. I fail to understand that he would have been admitted to Harvard Business School as a “heritage” student, and he did earn an MBA from that illustrious institution. Again, to think the faculty would have given him an unearned pass defies reality. Finally, an unintelligent person does not learn to fly a high performance fighter jet fighter – and live. This blog entry is not the forum to discuss whether or not President Bush faithfully fulfilled his military obligations to the Air Force in response to his training and commission.
My criticism of President Bush’s intellectual abilities focus on two aspects: He is intellectually incurious and, and with respect to his advisers/top members of his administration, he placed a higher premium on personal loyalty to him and his family than on competence and a realistic view of history relating to current events.
Now to President Obama. Many, if not most, of my conservative friends define President Obama as an “empty suit”, a creation of the purported liberal media. That is, President Obama supposedly does not have a great intellectual capacity or his purported policies arise from a deficient and non-intellectual view of history and current reality.
My response to these assertions is as follows: The future President Obama graduated from Columbia University, which many people would consider on a par with Yale University. He earned a law degree from a prestigious law school, Harvard. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Neither of these higher-level academic institutions would have given the future President Obama a race-related free “pass”. Accordingly, President Obama must be considered intellectually capable to a high degree and not an “empty suit”, leaving aside for the purposes of this post any comments about the claimed idiocy of his purported liberal agenda. Furthermore, suppose President Obama is a “creature of the media”. >If so, he demonstrated considerable smarts in manipulating the media to support him, keeping in mind the dearth of his previous legislative accomplishments in Illinois and in the US Senate. I suspect he saw his moment and seized it.
My conservative brothers and sisters should realize that the primary operating principle of the media, even the ostensible liberal segments, is disbelief in what is put before them. That is, even today, most of the media are reasonably rational skeptics, although often approaching issues from different perspectives. (To see this point, look at the panel debates on CNN, FOX, and PBS.)
If conservatives believe President Obama’s liberal and socialistic agenda will “destroy” our free enterprise system and this country as we know it, then my conservative brothers and sisters should really be concerned because we have a truly smart and manipulative person leading this country to damnation. That is, conservatives should not consider President Obama to be a trivial force.
I think my conservative brothers and sisters will have the same degree of success in pushing the claim of an “empty suit” and liberal destroyer of this great country for President Obama as did my liberal brothers and sisters with their claim that President Bush is an idiot whose conservative principles could have led/did lead to the economic and moral destruction of our country.
Liberals and conservatives, as is appropriate, are engaged in a contest for the soul and future of this country; however, we should be clear about the terms of engagement. As my liberal brothers and sisters under estimated President Bush, my conservative brothers and sisters should neither under nor over estimate President Obama. Finally, I suggest all parties to the current contest focus on presenting reasoned proposals, not character invectives and endless discussions about the past.
George Santayana did say that those of us who do not learn from the mistakes of the past will repeat the errors of the past. And, yes, Einstein did say that insanity consists of doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. But, assigning blame for past mistakes has less value than proposals to correct past mistakes and move the country forward.
Perseverantia usque ad finem – Perseverance to the end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
