A New President of the United States

With very few exceptions, I find myself selecting the lesser of two evils in presidential elections. Either candidate this year would be an improvement over the current administration. The economic situation allowed the candidates to flunk on or to “bury” important issues.

• Neither candidate spoke much about illegal immigration; both presented similar uninspired approaches to the issue that should probably be in the top 5 on the priority list.
• Neither candidate offered an approach to health care that addresses the root causes of the problem (over-inflated costs); they offered government handouts instead (probably because they can’t afford to lose campaign donations from the insurance companies).
• Both candidates promise to eliminate the influence of “special interests,” but graciously accept large donations from the very same “special interests.

Although I disagree with Obama on several issues, the gaps are not very wide. His analysis of the Iraq/Pakistan/Al Qaida situation almost exactly matches mine, and his proposed approach is fairly close to mine.

I like the general direction of Obama’s tax proposals, but I worry a little about the details of the implementation.

• We should not be offering subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies that are making record profits. Nor should we offer bailout funds to financial institutions that use them to pay bonuses to the executive jerks that put the companies in the tank.
• We should offer not handouts, but rather issue contracts to companies for the development and production of alternative energy sources.
• We should tax the huge amounts of "unearned" wealth amassed by hedge fund brokers, insurance companies, athletes, entertainment personalities, etc.
• We should tax the roughly 6,600 multimillionaires who paid no taxes last year. But we should not increase taxes for someone merely because he grossed $250k last year in a small business.
• Some fine distinctions have to be made with respect to increasing taxes on corporations (which, done wrong, could damage the nation’s economic health) or increasing taxes on personal income (since most everyone can get along comfortably without a yacht, a fifth car, or a third house, or two hundred suits).

Unfortunately, neither the congress nor the president seems to have the ability or the desire to ensure that all earnings are accurately reported, or to make the necessary distinctions regarding what kinds of wealth are taxable.
I sincerely hope that Obama shows better judgment in selecting his future associates and advisors than he did during his political rise (Ayers, Wright and Pfleger are not the people I want to see advising our President). And I hope that Obama’s future actions directly support the admirable goals that he delineated during the campaign.

Throughout his campaign, McCain demonstrated that he could not make good decisions. His energy plan was superficial, his health plan was foolish, and his financial plan was virtually non-existent. From his choice of a running mate, I concluded that he did not want a potential 2012 presidential candidate to be tarnished by a probable loss this year. He declined many opportunities to communicate his plans for the future, and appeared to pander to the rightists instead.

I'm glad that I decided to vote for Obama, and that a majority of Americans came to the same conclusion.

Rob

Theories of Taxation

Much talk in the current Presidential campaign deals with the candidates' proposed tax policies.

One candidate wants to have taxes for the poor and the middle class reduced, or at least kept constant, and at the same time increase taxes for corporations and rich people. "Spread the wealth," he says.

Another candidate wants to reduce taxes for the wealthy, to bolster the economy by allowing them to expand their businesses and hire people.

Both candidates want to offer tax breaks or subsidies to companies that are developing alternative energy sources.

My dilemma is that these positions are totally wrong! They are wrong because the distort or conflict with the only valid reason for taxes in the first place.

To use taxes as a means of redistributing the wealth is the Robin Hood approach to taxation. Although we love the legendary Robin Hood, he was nonetheless a thief.

Some people view their taxes as a "use fee" for the services the government provides. While this view allays their disgust at having to pay their taxes, it does not constitute a valid taxation theory because each individual is necessarily paying for many government services that he never uses.

Some people believe we should use taxes to modify peoples' behaviors. That is, if we want people to stop smoking or drinking we place a tax on tobacco or alcohol. If we want people to buy solar panels, we offer them a tax break when they buy a solar panel. Neither of these is a valid use for taxation.

If we want to encourage the development of solar power sources or alternatives to fossil fuels for automobiles, we should neither tax fossil fuels nor offer tax breaks to energy companies. The proper way is for Congress to task and fund a government department to research and develop the new energy system, just as we task the department of defense to develop weapons systems. The department then issues competitive contracts for the design and development, or issues IR&D funds to companies that have promising technologies. These costs become part of the department's operating budget.

The only legitimate reason for imposing taxes is to pay the cost of operating the government.

The impact of operating on the assumption above is that it simplifies the tax code immensely. It also removes all of the politics from the process of determining how much tax a person should pay. Once the political issues are set aside, it becomes much easier to figure out how much each person should pay.

The simplest formula would be that each person pays a truly fair share, that is a fixed percentage of his total income. Some people consider this simple approach to be "regressive," however, because a poor person spends nearly all of his income on necessities (food, shelter, and transportation) while most of the income of a wealthy person is used for discretionary luxuries (entertainment, a vacation home, a yacht, or meals at gourmet restaurants).

A simple formula can be devised to compensate for this apparent imbalance. First, we compute the total amount an average person or household must expend to obtain the necessities of life. We then stipulate that for each person or household, all income up to that average amount is not taxed. But every dollar earned above that average total amount is taxed at a flat rate.

In some cases, this "average necessities" determination will appear fairly harsh. For example, the "average" housing cost may turn out to be the ownership cost of a 1500 square foot two bedroom home. The difference between that and the cost of a mansion or of two houses would be considered discretionary. The income that one pays for 3 pairs of $50.00 shoes may not be taxed; but most of the income that another pays for 40 pairs of $400.00 shoes will be taxed. This "average cost of living" would be recalculated each year.

Assume that it is determined an average individual needs to pay for reasonable necessities a total of $30,000 per year. An person who earns only $25,000 per year will pay no taxes. One who earns $50,000 per year will pay taxes (at a specified percentage) on discretionary income of $20,000. And someone who receives $1 million a year will pay the same percentage of tax on discretionary income of $970,000.

Simplicity is an important part of this approach. There are no "credits" or "adjustments" to gross income. There are no deductions for mortgage interest. There are no special rates for capital gains. There are no gimmicks to punish "bad" spending or credits for "good" spending. If the sole purpose for imposing taxes is to pay the cost of operating the government, we will probably find that the tax percentage is relatively small--probably in the neighborhood of 13 %.

As long as our politicians insist on buying the votes of the poor and middle class people with the income of corporations and wealthy people, nobody will entertain even a study of a simpler, more pragmatic approach. As long as the tax laws are written by politicians who are in the top 5% of income earners in the country, they will give the wealthiest individuals tax breaks that are not available to the other 95% of the people. And the more than 6,600 people in the top 1% income bracket who paid no taxes at all last year will continue to dodge paying their fair share of the operating cost of the government.

This country was formed as the result of a revolutionary war by colonial citizens who were unfairly taxed by the British government. How long will it take our citizens to realize that our current national tax policies are similarly unfair? When will we use the power of our votes to create an electoral revolution?

The United States Congress

The only folks who have a lower rating than President Bush are the members of Congress. No wonder--they deserve it.

I'm retired, living on a pension and (what's left of) an IRA. Like many others, I am disgusted that our country could come so close to a financial meltdown after having learned the lessons of the Great Depression of 1929.

We have complained that Congress does not act until there is a crisis. The current Congress is showing us that they do not act, even when there is a crisis. When they get over their heads in a problem they do not understand, they spend most of their time critizing and blaming each other and other politicians, as opposed to solving the problem.

Members of the House of Representatives seem to be much more interested in fixing the blame than in fixing the problem. The members of the Senate are not doing much either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm don't believe that the bailout bill is a good piece of legislation. Like most of our representatives, I have not even read it. All I know about it is what I read in the papers. The facts are that the bill is not a cure for the nation's financial ills. It is a band-aid; one that may not even work. But it is needed.

Just as they did with the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill, some of our representatives are dumb enough to believe that one piece of legislation can solve all the problems. Democrats don't want to bail out the Bush administation that (they believe) caused all the problems. Republicans are calling for regulation to prevent the sloppy practices that began during the Clinton administration.

The fact is, that to the extent that they observed the problem as it developed and did absolutely nothing about it, that ALL of the politicians share the blame for the economic crisis.

The parallels to the "comprehensive immigration reform" are obvious. Both problems are complicated, and have many parts to them. The border fence is not the best solution, not necessarily an effective solution, and certainly not the only solution. The same can be said of the bailout. But in both cases, the "band-aid" can stop or slow the flow of blood while we take the time we need to solve the other parts of the problem.

So, Congress, write and pass a bailout bill that includes some congressional oversight and has safeguards to keep the greedy CEOs that cooked up this mess from profiting for their actions.

Then consult with some economists and business men to enact, or re-enact, some regulatory controls that will keep it from happening again. And stop wasting your time and our money working on your usual pork barrel politics.

Is Mankind Making Progress on the Fundamentals?

I have not been posting to the Bullmoose Journal very often recently. Most of my writing has gone to my other blog, Poochie Williamson's Page, which is dedicated to less the less profound, but more personal, things in my life.

Since I started the Bullmoose Journal, I have discussed a number of topics that I believe should be of concern to all of us: the war on terrorism, the energy "crisis," fair taxation, etc. I decided now is a good time to assess how much progress, and in what direction, has occurred on some of those topics.

First, global warming and alternative energy. I stated that I am not sure whether global warming is real or not. I also said that if it is a reality, the chances are slim that humans are the primary cause, or that the people of the world can take enough action quickly to reverse the trend. Since then, scientists have reported evidence of global warming on Mars and Jupiter. That makes me lean toward accepting that global warming is a fact, but intensifies my belief that we may not be able to do much to stop it.

I have stated, however, that even if increased conservation and the development of non- CO2 emitting energy sources do not have much influence on global warming, it makes sense to pursue those aims. Unfortunately, our government still won't let us build nuclear power plants. It has also done little or nothing to accelerate the development of the hydrogen fuel cell auto, to incentivize research and development of better and cheaper technology for wind and solar energy sources. The government had an opportunity to do those things in the energy crisis of 1974, when a 50-cent per gallon gasoline tax would have increased the price to a whopping $1.85 per gallon. Now the price is over $4.00 per gallon, and neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress have lifted a finger to pursue the logical alternatives. The only gas we are getting is the hot air from Washington.

Many people think the "big oil" lobby is behind this. But the Department of energy says that the refiners only get 36 cents out of the $4.00 per gallon, and that their profit margin is 7.6%, as opposed to an average of 9.2% for other producers. The big bucks ($2.96) in four dollar gasoline go to the oil producers. The fault is in our country's energy policy, which has not been to reduce our dependence on the foreign oil imports through either additional local drilling or through the development of alternative energy sources. Again, both Republican and Democrat administrations are guilty here.

I also discussed the need for a truly fair tax structure, not for the purpose of redistributing wealth, but rather to see that every person carries his fair share of the tax burden. Democrats do not want the lower 50% of wage earners to pay any taxes, and Republicans refuse to increase taxes for the wealthiest 1%.

The Federal statistics on income show that the wealthiest 1% of our people accrue about 22% of the nation's overall income. Their median tax rate is about 22% of taxable income, which is well above the national average for individuals. But beware!!! First, Congress has written our tax code so that for the wealthiest 1%, large portions of their income are excluded from their "adjusted gross" and taxable incomes. Their median tax rate of 22% tell us that half of these people, including the President and the Vice President pay much more than that rate. On the other hand, half of them pay much less than 22%. In fact, about 2000 of these wealthiest 1% paid no taxes at all. Adding to this disparity, roughly the lowest 1/2 of our nation's wage earners contribute only 3% of the total federal taxes.

As a result, the economic middle class (those who earn between $50k and $200k per year) are carrying nearly all of the federal tax burden. There is not even a hint of remedy to this problem from either party.

Another topic I have expressed criticism on is the handling of the war on terrorism. I stated that having opened a "second front" in Iraq on this war, we were obligated to confess some of our tactical blunders and finish the job efficiently. Well, the administration never really did the former, but it has made significant progress on the latter. But we have paid the price in the form of some backsliding in Afghanistan, and in virtually no progress in getting our "semi-ally," Pakistan to correct the al-Qaida problems in their country. Democrats, at least, appear to seek a relatively quick exit from Iraq and to increase the pressure in Afghanistan. But neither party shows me a commitment or a plan to fix the mess in Pakistan.

Then, of course, there is the illegal immigration issue. Have you noticed that as the presidential campaigns ramp up, this topic is virtually ignored. Ask yourself which is more important to our presidential candidates--the personal power gained by winning the election, or our national security? The answer, of course, is the win; to achieve that, neither candidate can afford to anger the Latino voters. Progress has been made on the wall for the southern border, but at a wretchedly slow pace. The subject of amnesty will alienate either Latinos or conservatives, depending on how it is presented. Illegal immigration has been a non-issue for Democrats since the beginning of the primary races. And it is an issue to be avoided by Republicans, now that their nominee has been determined. This issue impacts virtually every American with respect to economics, crime, and health care. But at the poles, we can choose among a batch of candidates who refuse to acknowledge the importance of the issue and meet it head on.

One other area of concern is the increasing level of ignorance in the United States, along with a general decline in civility among our citizens, and a general lack of individual accountability among them. Our government tries to put the knowledge burden on our schools with tests, achievement standards, and money. But you cannot test for personal values, or for the ability to recognize bad choices and accept the unpleasant consequences thereof. Schools can assist with those kind of things, but the real burden is on the parents. Unfortunately, most parents today don't have those values, or don't have a clue about how to pass them on, and they don't care.

Whether you believe that humanity has had the opportunity to improve this condition for 6,000 years or for 60,000 years, you have to accept the fact that most of us are doing a lousy job. For many, it is because their parents did a lousy job. Millions of words have been penned about the importance of teaching our children knowledge, skills, ethics, morality, civil behavior, and responsibility. Those elements are fundamental to an advanced and balanced civilization. Lack of them either causes or aggravates the other problems we are dealing with.

We know that most of a person's basic behavior patterns are learned by age 4, before he has even seen a school. Yet many parents are mucking up the job as much or more than their prehistoric ancestors did. Now some of the products of these incompetants are teaching in our schools. Our elected officials have no understanding of the nature of this problem, nor of realistic solutions--they are, in fact, part of the problem. The answer has to come from a strong commitment within each individual person.

Don't accuse me for whining about these things, or for blaming it all on Government. After all, we as individuals elected the lawmakers and administrators in Washington. We have the obligation to instill sense, civility, and accountability in our offspring. Those of us who are striving to understand and improve the situation earn an "E for effort." I just want to wake up the 95% of our citizens who don't know and don't care.

McCain Has It Right on This Issue!

I sure have complained enough in previous posts about the absurd salaries and severance packages that corporations are giving their chief executives. It bothers me that, up to this point, no one else seemed to care. Now presidential candidate John McCain has proposed a policy on this topic will probably win my vote.

"Something is seriously wrong when
the American people are left to bear the
consequences of reckless corporate con-
duct, while the offenders themselves are
packed off with another $40 million or
$50 million for the road. If I am elected
president, I intend to see that wrong-
doing of this kind is called to account
by federal prosecutors. And under my
reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, in-
cluding any severance arrangements,
must be approved by shareholders."

Corporate CEO's receive over 36o times the compensation of their average employees, and they receive juicy severance packages, even when they are dismissed for having run a company into the ground. CEO's do have special talents, and many of them do work hard. But they put their trousers on one leg at a time just like the rest of us, and most certainly are not 360 times as valuable by anyone's measure. John McCain's proposed reforms are long overdue.

Now before all the "free market conservatives" jump on me, let me say this: human nature (call it greed) will cause any totally "free" market to be abused by a corrupt few individuals. In the absence of universal morality and fairness, a society must have rules, boundaries, and limitations imposed by laws to prevent that corrupt few from victimizing the rest of the society.

Now if we could only go after all those ridiculously overpaid entertainment folks and professional athletes...

The Jihad Candidate

The Presidential campaign this year promises to be a hot one.

I received the following message and reply from a retired Navy colleague of mine. It is apparently getting wide circulation among US Naval Academy graduates, many of whom are Republicans. I don’t know who Rich Carroll is, but he seems to be a conspiracy nut.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Jihad candidate

To all...As Classmate Bill said in sending this to me; Try it on for size. If you have received this, it doesn't show in messages that I received. I thought this too powerful for you not to see it.

C / Pete

PS ....Wayne: Does Carroll's opinion fit into your earlier assessment of Islam and its challenges?

-------------------------------------------------------


Subject: FW: The Jihad candidate

Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:51:57

Rich Carroll articulates the thoughts that have been on many people's minds. There's too much question surrounding Obama and Michelle's real ideology. Too many sinister associations make me suspicious. Also his past is still a blank. The Jihad Candidate by Rich Carroll Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction. Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but be fore you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'? Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or that his church re-p rinted the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American main stream media clammed-up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from main stream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dot s with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is; Muslims killing non Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable hou se by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to dis-arm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?

------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE:The Jihad candidate

Pete and Classmates,

I believe there are conspiracies.

I don't think one needs to believe Senator Obama is conspiring per this appraisal which ties him to Islamic fundamentalists.

There is no need to make him a Black Muslim to think he would be a frightening President.
Senator Obama is from Chicago, where long ago the motto was "Vote early and often." If you look at his spectacular rise to prominence, it is easy to see he is the product of the Democratic machine in my home town.

Anyone who probes beneath the Obama appeal for "Change" ought to know there is change for the better and change for the worse, without any resort to conspiracy.

Obama is monstrously effective. He will capture the youth vote. It is extraordinary that he found Senator Clinton's vulnerability and beat her. She is still wondering what happened. I hope Senator McCain is shrewder.

Wayne

-------------------------------------------------------------------

At least “classmate Wayne” takes a less inflammatory position. Everyone should, of course, decide on the basis of facts, not theories. As Dr. Phil has said, the best predictor of a person's future actions is his past behavior. We need a President who recognizes all that is really great about our country, and who can offer constructive change to improve what is not so good. I am not sure that either party's candidate can do that.

More on Income Inequality

Republicans are happier than democrats, and conservatives are happier than liberals, according to a report published by the Pew Research Center.

The Pew Research Center has been doing surveys on happiness for several years now. I could not find the 2008 report on-line, but the 2007 report is available, and reaches many of the same conclusions. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet

The reason is not obvious, but the Pew researchers hypothesize that conservatives have found rationalizations for the extreme inequalties in personal wealth and income, and accept those inequalities; while for liberals, the inequalities are a constant source of discontent.


My own experience correlates well with the Pew study. I am generally a pretty happy guy. I belong in most of the categories that demonstrate higher degrees of happiness: married, pet owner, more than average wealth, and yes, Republican and somewhat conservative. So it seems likely that I would be happy.


Interestingly, one of the few topics that brings a scowl to my face is income inequality. That topic feeds the unhappy liberal part of me. No doubt about it, whenever I dwell on the subject, my happiness goes into hiding. I have discussed it in some of my previous posts on the blog about wealth and taxes.


Three of the Seven Deadly Sins are economic: greed, sloth, and envy. But I have always been a diligent worker, and I don't think the source of my anger is either envy or greed--I am content with what I have earned in my lifetime. Rather, it is my perception that much of the wealth of the rich guys is derived from greed, sloth, or envy: either unearned, or undeserved, or illegally obtained, or received for activities that our society places a distorted value upon.

1. In my Shangri-La, wealth is not "redistributed." Inequalities of wealth still exist. But the difference are:
   Those who obtain their wealth illegally are stripped of their wealth and jailed.


2. Those who don't work don't receive money, except from charitable and generous friends and family.


3. Work is compensated in proportion to its true contribution to the well-being of the society. That is, doctors are paid more that baseball players, firefighters are paid more than pop singers, teachers are paid more than tv talk show hosts, research scientists and engineers are paid more than insurance brokers, and so on.

Those things only happen in a society where every individual places higher values on education, health, and safety than he does on sports, entertainment, and the accumulation of money. When it comes to values, we all vote with our pocketbooks. And with our pocketbooks we unconsciously betray our traditional values. More than one person I know brags about paying $200 a ticket to attend a rock concert, and in the next breath complains about paying $65 for an office visit to his doctor.

A society must develop and preserve a traditional value system through continuing and intense education of the young, both by parents and in schools. Some people tend to discard the traditional values in their pursuit of change for change's sake, or simply because they are too lazy to preserve them. When members of a society begin to abandon those higher values, they sow the seeds of the society's own discontent, and its eventual destruction.

"TIE THAT BULL OUTSIDE"

Nearly everyone who has collected Theodore Roosevelt campaign items has encountered one or both of the pins that depict Jeff, of Bud Fisher’s Mutt and Jeff comic strip, pointing to Theodore Roosevelt with moose in tow, and telling him to “Tie that bull outside.” Many people claim that these badges are associated with TR’s 1912 Progressive Party campaign. There are, in fact, lots of pins that carry the phrase, or a variation of it. A few that I have acquired are shown in the illustration.

Figure 1 -- “Tie the Bull Outside” badges. Item 1 is a 7/8-inch celluloid version of the variety that pictures TR, and item 4 is a 1 ¼-inch lithographed version. The latter was four-color printed, and the former appeared in both color and black-and-white editions. Some of the other badges, like item 2, depict a bovine bull; and many, like items 3, 5, and 6, have only the words.

Dictionaries of slang state that the phrase means “I don’t believe you,” and that it is also used to reject or dismiss a person’s comment, or to stop an activity. In Eugene O’Neill’s play Ah, Wilderness, one of the characters at a 4th of July gathering uses it to scold a man who spouts some communist philosophy. In a story called Three Soldiers, written by John Dos Passos in 1921, one of the patients in a hospital ward shouts “Fellows, the war’s over.” The other patients respond with “Put him out,” “cut that,” “pull the chain,” and “Tie that bull outside.” If, in fact, the badges were used in the 1912 campaign, they would have been worn by Wilson or Taft supporters, announcing to the TR advocates, “I don’t believe you.”

But they were probably not used that way. During the first half of the twentieth century, several companies produced sets of novelty badges with phrases such as “Chicken Inspector,” “I’m the Guy,” and “Can it!” that were used as advertising premiums and carnival prizes. The “bull outside” badges that depict a bovine, or have only the words, were surely produced as novelties, not for political campaign use. Apparently, one manufacturer contracted with Bud Fisher to design a series of about a dozen badges that picture Mutt and Jeff acting out several of those joke phrases, then manufactured and sold them to a tobacco company for insertion in plug tobacco or cigarette packages.


Figure 2. -- Hassan Cigarette badges. These are 7/8 inch celluloid badges.

It was Mr. Fisher whose creativity probably first connected the phrase “Tie that bull outside” to Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party Bull Moose. The question is, though, when did that connection occur? Over the years, I have seen lithographed badges from the 1916 and 1920 presidential campaigns, but I have not encountered one from the 1912 campaign. It was probably during or after the 1912 campaign that Bud Fisher needed to think up a way to illustrate “Tie that bull outside,” and TR’s Bull Moose provided the needed inspiration. So it is likely that the Bud Fisher badges were manufactured after 1912. I would bet that none were actually worn during the campaign. After all, it is not Woodrow Wilson or William H. Taft, but Jeff who tells TR to “tie that bull outside.”

Even if they are not campaign items in the pure sense, the “Tie That Bull Outside” badges demonstrate how Theodore Roosevelt’s personality permeated many aspects of daily life in the early twentieth century America. No doubt these colorful and humorous Bud Fisher creations will continue to be sought by collectors of TR memorabilia.

ABC's of Health Care Reform

Each of the candidates for President of the U.S. has a plan for fixing the country's health care crisis. They all claim to be "comprehensive," or "universal." Most of the plans involve the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayer money and/or the creation of another federal bureaucracy. Many of the candidates say the solution is to force everyone to have health care insurance.

I have little confidence in these solutions for two reasons. First, many of them have been tried before in other countries or in indvidual states, and they have not solved the problem. In some cases, they aggravated the problem. Second, none of the politicians has bothered to explain the simple, logical analysis of the problem that leads to his proposed solution.

So, I have done my own analysis, based mostly on personal observation and, in some cases, on admittedly anecdotal evidence. I offer it here, not as a case for my preferred solution, but rather to encourage all of you to make your own observations and conclusions.

The first step is to stand back and define the nature of this crisis, the biggest single characteristic that contributes to it. Ask three questions:

1. Availability--Is our biggest problem a shortage of health care facilities and personnel? Probably not; people in most parts of the country have doctors and hospitals near enough to serve them.
2. Quality--Are the available technology and the training of the providers substantially below that currently available throughout the world? Probably the opposite is true.
3. Cost--Is health care reasonably priced so that nearly everyone can afford the treatments that they need? The answer is no; the cost of health care is so high that very few individuals can afford to buy it.

If we can agree that the cost of health care in the United States is the largest contributor to the crisis, then we must next look at the elements that contribute to the cost. I will be the first to admit that I do not have access to complete and accurate data on that subject, but presumably the folks who offer solutions do have that information. The question is: "If you or I spend one dollar on health care, what portion of that dollar goes to each of the components that make up health care? Specifically, the most obvious components include:

• Wages of health care givers--doctors, nurses, orderlies, laboratory technicians, equipment repairmen, janitors, hospital and office administrative staff, etc.
• Cost of facilities--hospital buildings, office rentals, diagnostic equipment, beds, gurneys, medicine cabinets, etc.
• Cost of prescription drugs and other medications.
• Cost of litigation and litigation for malpractice
• Cost of health insurance to patients to defray the other costs of healthcare

My perception is that the first two are both necessary and probably reasonable. The third and fourth are necessary, but unreasonably high, costs that can be reduced through proper regulation.

A recent letter to the Los Angeles Times by Kaye Klem of Sun City, California, points out that, for the last item on this list, "...insurance companies skim off roughly one third of each health care dollar we pay on overhead, salaries for hundreds of...executives and profits for stock holders."

These insurance companies take our money and then make lists of reasons why they should not pay it out for health services. They try to convince us that as a bulk provider, they get a "negotiated discount" that is not availble to indivduals. In reality, hospitals and medical professionals would gladly accept a fair price for their services, regardless of who writes the check. Almost every one of us has encountered these problems after we have paid our insurance premiums and when we file a claim. The money that stays in the insurance companies does not buy us diagnosis or treatment; it goes to bureaucrats. When the cost of this "administration" becomes comparable to the cost of the actual treatment, the cost of personal health insurance becomes the problem that most urgently requires correction.

But some of our most prominent politicians have the audacity to propose that we all be forced to buy insurance from these companies, and further, that if an individual cannot afford it, the government should subsidize the premiums with taxpayer money. That approach does not solve the problem; it exacerbates the problem and perpetuates it, literally by fueling it with tax dollars. Is it possible that the political solution is being driven by an active lobby for the insurance companies?

By converting to a single-payer system, or to a system that involves a limited number of closely-regulated providers, we should be able to reduce that health care dollar we spend to eighty cents or less. Then many more people would be able to afford the insurance.

After that, we can analyze and improve the second and third cost drivers, high costs of prescription drugs and malpractice litigation, to bring the total cost of health care closer to the cost of the actual medical services. With this approach, both the medical professionals and their customers become winners.

Dialog Becomes Argument

Here is a hypothetical discussion at an automobile dealer.

Customer: I would like to buy a car that will seat my family of four, and will get really good gas mileage, say around 40 miles per gallon.

Salesman: What you really need is our Reckless Sports Coupe. The engine has 350 horsepower, and it has a convertible top.

Customer: But it only has 2 seats. I need a car that seats 4.

Salesman: That 350 horsepower engine in the Reckless will take you from zero to 60 mph in less than 6 seconds. And the Reckless comes in 7 sporty colors including racing green and fire engine red.

Customer: I really need a car that gets better gas mileage, because I have a long commute and a short budget. And I need at least 4 seats.

Salesman: The convertible top on the Reckless will make you the envy of the neighborhood. And it will let you enjoy the fresh air and sunshine on your Sunday afternoon drives.

Customer: I agree. The Reckless has a big engine and goes very fast. It's convertible top makes it lovely to look at and fun to ride in. But I need a car with 4 seats and fuel efficiency. I shall visit another dealer.

This is not a dialog, it is a one-sided argument. The salesman does not hear, or he defiantly ignores the customer's needs. He continually changes the subject. The salesman so believes in his product that he is determined to sell it, even though it does not meet the buyer's requirements. He goes on and on, extolling the virtues of the car that, in this buyer's eyes, has two major drawbacks. That the frustrated buyer goes somewhere else to make his purchase is to be expected.

Politicians do this all the time. When his pet program is criticized by a citizen whose needs are not met by it, the politician makes no effort to show how those needs can be satisfied. Nor does he attempt to modify his program. Sometimes the simple truth is that the politician does not want to meet the needs of this citizen. He changes the subject because he has no reasonable alternative to offer. He talks about all the other features of his program, or he appeals to emotions--anything to avoid discussing the expressed concern of the citizen.

If the customer decides to fall in love with the racy colors and the convertible top, he votes for the politician and ends up with a program that does not really benefit him. If he absolutely has to have 4 seats, he votes for another candidate.

That's why political discussions are so frustrating. The 'salesmen' relentlessly dodge the issues.

The "Fair Tax" is NOT Fair

I will be the first to admit that I have not read a detailed proposal for the so-called "Fair Tax." I understand that the concept is to replace the Federal Income Tax with a Federal Consumption (or sales) Tax.

Its proponents may call it a Consumption Tax, if they wish, but I can think of two reasons that it should not be called a "Fair Tax."

• First, a personal one -- a significant portion of my income comprises my contributions to company pension, on which I have already paid Federal Income taxes. That income is reported, but not taxed a second time. If a consumption tax were implemented, I would be paying consumption tax on money that was already subjected to the income tax.
• Second, it appears to me that a consumption tax unfairly benefits high wage earners over lower wage earners.

To illustrate the second point look at two simple examples: one a laborer who earns $50,000 per year; the second an executive who earns $5,000,000 per year.

• The laborer now pays 15% of his earnings ($7,500) in income taxes. If he is frugal, he saves about 10% of the after tax money and spends the rest, $38,500 to live on. Under the so-called "Fair Tax," the laborer will still put $4,250 into savings. He will spend the remaining on goods taxed at a 23% rate ($37,195 in goods and services, $8,555 in federal tax). That means his tax bill has gone up from $7,500 to $8,555)
• The executive now pays about 24% of his earnings ($1,200,000) in Federal income tax, invests about $2,800,000 in savings, and spends the last 1,000,000 to live on. Under the so-called "Fair Tax," the executive will still live on 1,000,000 worth of goods and services, on which he will pay $230,000 in Federal Consumption tax, and he will invest the remaining $3,770,000 in savings, which will earn him even more money next year. His taxes decrease by $970,000. [Now, you rich guys can explain to me that you just can't get by on a measely $1,000,000 per year. But even if you significantly change the spending to investment ratio, the taxes still go down. Moreover, the laborer does not have the latitude to make that kind of adjustment.]

So the Consumption Tax is NOT a fair tax! It benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Most tax laws are written this way because they are written by wealthy people. Then they present the tax in such a way that it appears to be "fair."

Most people will agree that any tax on a person who earns less than "the poverty level" is not really fair. Many will agree that at some point one's earnings are such that he can live comfortably, build his savings, and still have a LOT of money "left over." Just ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

A flat tax on income, or a somewhat progressive variant thereof, is probably the only way to approach fairness in taxation. The variation I suggest is a tax on ALL personal income (regardless of source, no deductions, no adjustments, no credits) -- approximately the first $33,000 of income to be tax-free; from $33,001 to $200,000 of income to be taxed at 12%, and from $200,000 up be taxed at 25%. The break points should be adjusted annualy for inflation. The actual rates can be calculated to make sure that the structural change is "revenue neutral."

A few notes: (1) I said personal income. Taxes on corporations are never paid by the corporations; they are passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices. (2) The highest rate of 25% may seem low to some ultra-liberals, but remember it applies to ALL income (i.e. no more 15% rate for capital gains). (3) ALL income may be hard to determine, because some people receive many types of income and do not report portions of it that are not salary, wages, or interest. (4) The consumption tax is even more cruel to the poorest of wage earners who now pay no income tax. Suddenly, they will see their buying power decrease by 23%.

I know this is all overly-simplified. The discussion is meant to be conceptual, as opposed to specific. But one of the keys to solving the tax problem is to simplify it. One important concept is that taxation should be used to fund the operations of government, not to control people's behavior. A typical governmental abuse of "consumption" taxes is to increase the consumption tax on "undesirable" products and services. A tax that is simply based on total personal income avoids that kind of abuse.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

An editorial in the Orange County Register today states that the "consensus" on global warming is a fiction.

It points out that many scientists from prestigious institutions disagree strongly with the findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that increases in man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

The skeptical scientists are experts in many fields: climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, environmental sciences, physics, and others. They are affiliated with institutions that inclured Harvard, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, MIT, the International Arctic Research Center, and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, among others. Their views are accumulated in a report from the U. S. Senate.

The consensus-refuting comments can be read at http://www.epw.senate.gov (click on U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-made Global Warming Claims in 2007). Some examples:

• Dr. Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut: "Climate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backward. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead, a warmer Earth cause the higher carbon dioxide levels."
• Swedish geologist Dr. Bibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus at Stockholm University: "...As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating, but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930's and 1940's...it will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one meter."

The OC Register is correct--there is no consensus! Some scientists disagree over the extent, if any of the warming trend. Others see correlation between increases in CO2 concentration and Earth temperature increases, but disagree on which is the cause and which is the effect.

So which group of scientists should we believe? I maintain that it does not matter all that much, because there are less complex issues on which it is easier to reach consensus. We can probably agree that the continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels will result in both the eventual depletion of the resources and an unacceptable pollution of our atmosphere. Their continued use threatens the viability of our civilization. Irrespective of the hullabaloo about global warming, it makes sense to reduce both our total energy consumption and our dependence upon fossil fuels.

Whatever actions we take, however, must be based on thorough mathematics and sound scientific principles. We must accurately assess both the energy cost of producing a product and the pollution created upon use or disposal of the product when we consider replacing that product with another. Those characteristics are easier to predict and to quantify for some specific products than is the more complicated processes of global climate change.