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.

Teaching History

Chad Farnan, a student in Capistrano Valley High School has sued his history teacher, James Corbett, alleging that Corbett has made anti-religion remarks in his Advanced Placement European History class this semester.

Students and alumni rallied outside their school Wednesday to show support for the embattled teacher. They say that Corbett encourages thinking in his classes; that he encourages discussions in an intelligent way.

I have taught history at both college and grammar school levels. I know how difficult it is to make history intellectually challenging, as opposed to a mere litany of dates and events. All I know about Mr. Corbett's class is what I read in the newspapers, but I can tell from the support he has received that he is one of those teachers who knows how to breath life and spirit into the subject.

When he ignites the fire of critical discussion, however, he runs the risk of it burning out of control. This is not a matter of "political correctness," or simply using prescribed language. Rather, it is one of exposing the strengths and weaknesses of various viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them. It is important to point out that a person's own baggage--religious, educational, or experiential--may some times prevent him from seeing an event or a decision with total objectivity.

One danger is that it is all too easy for the teacher to inject his own bias into the discussion. When he does, his position of authority gives the weight of fact to his personal opinions. A second danger, especially with younger students, is that the teacher's attempt to inject a contrary view into the discussion may be misinterpreted as an endorsement of that position. In either case objectivity is lost, and a fire of emotions flares up.

Either or both of those things may have happened in Mr. Corbett's class. Without hearing the actual discussion, we cannot be sure. It seems to me, though, that either a clarification of the misunderstanding or an apology for 'crossing the line' should suffice. It should be a matter that can be resolved between the teacher and his student, if both are objective and open-minded.

A lawsuit or other form of punishment only deprives us of a dynamic teacher who has found the way to get his students deeply involved in critical analysis of history. We can't afford to lose that.

President Bush Lied to Us

In the past, when someone put this statement on the table, I responded, "Prove it." The story was that President Bush convinced Congress to authorize military action in Iraq based on intelligence reports that the Bush Administration had edited in such a way as to indicate that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. I agreed that the intelligence reports were inaccurate and misleading, but nobody ever showed me concrete evidence that Pres. Bush or Vice Pres. Cheney had been personally involved in the alteration of the reports.

As of today, I have still not seen the evidence, but I am convinced that President Bush has lied to us. In fact, I see the President as being both shrewd and crafty, and capable of lying to the nation to promote his own agenda to the detriment of national security.

The proof is on his desk, in the form of an omnibus spending measure that he is about to sign.

Last year, President Bush signed an act that authorized the building of a fence along our southern border, along with other measures to prevent aliens from entering the country illegally. He announced the action with great fanfare, assuring us that he wanted to ensure the security of our sovereign state.

But the 3,500 pages omnibus spending act that he is about to sign contains a few paragraphs, written by one of his Texas political hacks, that not only reduce the funding for the fence, but cripple the building process with a nightmare of departmental, state and local approval requirements. The Democratic authors of the welcomed these neatly hidden restrictions, and the rest of Congress had only a few hours to read the bill, let alone find the wording and propose changes.

President Bush lied to us about the building of the border fence, and has ignored his oath to ensure the security of our country. And I now believe that he lied to promote his agenda in Iraq. Because of his diversion into Iraq, Afghanistan is still a dope-ridden mess, Bin Laden remains uncaptured, and both the Taliban and Al-qaida are rebuilding their strength. Now his second big lie leaves us open to thousands of illegal aliens entering our country and draining our resources for the benefit of his wealthy supporters.

Some folks say Bush is the dumbest president in the history of our nation, but he is not. He is shrewd, crafty, and also beholden to the Texas oil and agribusiness interests, and he makes no apology for it. If not the dumbest, he is nearly the worst president we have had, vying for the bottom slot with Presidents Harding and Buchanan with his deceit and the damage he has done. I only hope his successor has the wisdom and the strength to rebuild our national security and our confidence in the Presidency.

God and Country

Two letters appeared recently in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I have reproduced them below. The second comes from a lifelong friend of mine, and it makes a lot of sense.

• Letter #1--Regarding the Nov. 8 letters "Government and religion shouldn't mix": This is a Christian nation! So stated the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, on Feb. 29, 1892. In fact, in 1787, during the rancorous debates over a national Constitution, Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues of God's help and intervention during the Revolutionary War. He initiated daily prayer to ask for God's assistance and blessings in their deliberations.
  The Founding Fathers were Christians, who believed and read the Bible, and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. (Yes, a few were Deists.) George Washington took the oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, ending with the statement, "I swear, so help me God."
  Good government requires Christianity: Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
  Wouldn't you like our government officials to follow these precepts? For more information on America's Christian heritage, see americanvision.org. RON MASEK, Strongsville
• Letter #2--In Sunday's Letters was this statement, "Good government requires Christianity. Do good. Do justly. Help your neighbor. Obey the law. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet, don't take a bribe). Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Christianity does not have an exclusive patent on these ideals. Christianity does not own a monopoly.
  I have lived my life trying to follow ideals like these, not because a higher power has told me to, or because I'm threatened with eternal punishment if I don't follow them, but because it is the moral and ethical way to live and treat others. It is the right thing to do - the right way to live. That is just as true for non-Christians and non-believers.
  Ethical, moral, just and compassionate living does not require a religion to teach those qualities to humankind. They are qualities that should be practiced just because we are human and we live with other humans. The notion that religion is the only way to teach those morals is wrong. BRUCE FRUMKER, Cleveland Heights

I agree with Bruce that we need not embrace a specific religion in order to practice ‘ethical, moral, just and compassionate living.’ In fact, many of the Christians we have elected to offices in Washington DC today seem to be doing exactly the opposite.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the US is, or should be, a Christian nation. The Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion as the state religion. Furthermore, we could never agree on which brands of Christianity are acceptable.

But each of us must have the necessary imperative and discipline to teach morality, ethics, and compassion to our offspring. Organized religions provide a structure that enables and enhances that teaching mission—they are not necessary to the running of the government, but rather they help citizens to raise the type of people we need for future leaders.

I strongly oppose those people who would remove references to God from our pledge, our currency, our national documents, or our monuments. They go much too far. I do not find Allah, or Buddha, or another diety to be offensive. Nor should atheists or people of other religions, if they are intelligent, rational, and sane, find God to be offensive. I have never believed that the Government insists that I worship God. Instead, the Government acknowledges that our founders and leaders were and are inspired and guided by their God and His principles. And that's the way it should be.

No End in Sight

According to Fox News, in SYDNEY, Australia, the recruitment firm Westaff, which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country — has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

Two Santa hopefuls reportedly quit the course because the of "ho, ho, ho" is being discouraged. One would-be Santa told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute. He also quit.

Westaff's national Santa co-ordinator, Sari Hegarty, wrote to stores explaining the company's position: "Westaff has been a provider of quality caring Santas for over 40 years...Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience," she added. "We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas."

Westaff national operations manager Greg Jansz said it was "misleading" to say the company had banned Santa's traditional greeting and it was being left up to the discretion of Santa himself.

Well, there is another company where a couple of "political correctness" idiots have gone off the deep end. The Sari Hegartys of the world need both smarter brains and a serious attitude adjustment.

The simple fact is that nearly nobody, adult or child, would be both stupid enough and hypersensitive enough to be offended by Santa's "ho ho ho." It might make sense, though, to coach the Santas not to over-emote the line.

I am deeply offended by the repeated attacks by politically correct idiots on the customs of our society. But it seems that what offends me does not matter to the p.c. crowd. Only their petty grievances matter. It's long past time that we stop acting like we are walking on eggshells because of misplaced fear of a handful of hypersensitive, vindictive idiots. If we don't, then we won't be able to name our teddy bear Mohammed, or wish someone a Merry Christmas any more. We should just tell the crackpots to shut up, go home, and learn how to cope with situations that are less than ideal.

Aren't there some really serious injustices in the world that we should be using our energy to eliminate?

My Pseudonym

Someone told me that the pseudonym for a porn star is made by combining the name of his first pet with the name of the first street he lived on. My first pet was a dog we called Poochie. We lived on Williamson Road. I am definitely NOT a porn star, but I really like the name.

What's Wrong with Airport Security?

This cartoon by Mike Keefe in the Denver Post says it all. Whether it's nail clippers, a bottle of baby formula, or a sewing kit, airport security agents have diligently and repeatedly located and confiscated harmless items from 80 year-old women and 4 year-old children.

Maybe you feel safer in the presence of this arbitrary and mindless knee-jerk approach to security, but I am just plain annoyed. I have no objection to taking my shoes off and putting them on the conveyor belt. Based on recent history, that's a perfectly reasonable request. But it took them far too long to drop the nail clipper thing. The only folks who resent the intrusion of mindless security more than the bad guys do are the good guys!

Effective security concentrates on persons and items that, as a result of a preliminary screening, are determined to be most likely to cause severe damage. That's called profiling. Profiling can be done in a positive sense (to quickly pass low-risk passengers) as well as the more recognized sense (to single out high-risk passengers for closer scrutiny). But the criteria must be kept strictly confidential in order to retain their validity. With this approach, a few innocents who fail the initial screening will be inconvenienced, but that's better than spoiling travel for all the rest of us. If you are absolutely compelled to look like a duck and quack like a duck, then expect to be treated like a duck. That's the breaks; grin and bear it. Eventually your record of good behavior will put you in the low risk category.

>

There is no room for "political correctness" in the area of security.

Tips for Presidential Candidates

The pundits are saying that the independent voters will determine the outcome of the next U.S. Presidential election. I tend to agree with them. Although I am registered as a Republican, I have always voted based on the issues and on my conscience, not on party affiliation; I consider myself an independent.

So, Hillary and Rudy, Barak and Mitt, John McC and John E, (and all the rest), please listen to the voice of an independent:

1. Don't tell me how terrible things are in our nation. Tell me instead which of the good things you intend to preserve and enhance. You can tell me if something can be improved, if something is broken and needs fixing, or if something is missing and needs to be added, but be prepared to offer a specific remedy.
2. Stop proposing policies that favor the multimillionares who fund your campaigns to the detriment of the other 99% of our population. Make your proposals and your actions truly serve the common good.
3. Ignore the rantings of the blind dummies at the far right and the far left ends of the political spectrum. They probably account for about 5% of the total vote. There are many more voters toward the middle of the spectrum. They are the intelligent, thoughtful and curious ones who are examining all possible solutions to the problems and who are looking for intelligent problem solvers. They are also the ones who will see the benefits of your proposed solutions and embrace them regardless of the party of origin.
4. Make sure you address the important issues. Some candidates don't even have illegal immigration on their issues list. There are other missing issues as well. If you can't see what the important issues are, you aren't presidential material.
5. Don't change your position with every new poll that is published. If you truly believe you are right, hold fast to your position. On the other hand, if one or more polls indicate that 75% or more of the electorate disagree with you, then you should seriously reexamine your position, because they may have seen something you missed. If you are certain you are right, then you had better explain the facts that got you there.
6. Don't patronize me or try to dazzle me with promises of pie in the sky, two cars in every garage, or a chicken in every pot. These offers have already been made and renigued upon. Instead, be specific about the improvements or additions you want to make, and make them realistic in the sense that Congress will be able to implement them.
7. Don't offer me "comprehensive" reforms. These have failed every time they were implemented or attempted (e.g. health care, immigration, congressional ethics, campaign financing). Comprehensive reforms are so long and complicated that they are guaranteed to have one or more elements that will alienate voters of one persuasion or the other. As a result, few voters will support them. Most of our present policies are pretty darn good. They have specific faults that need correcting, or they are not always properly enforced. So identify the specific faults, and propose specific corrective and enforcement actions.
8. Don't be afraid that I will not vote for you if I disagree on an issue--that's exactly what elections are all about. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If you make more good suggestions than bad, and more good solutions than the other guy, you will get my vote.
9. Quit using ad hominum attacks. They have been around as long as politicians have. And they are weak and antagonistic substitutes for substantive positive positions on meaningful issues. Besides, you have just as many failings as the other guy does.

That is a recipe for winning the votes of independents. I suspect and fear that you will not follow it. No presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt has come very close to following it. Some of you have already begun your "avoid the issues and torpedo the opposition" campaign strategy. Change now, or lose my vote for sure (and those of most other independents as well).

Class in American Society

Republicans are criticizing Democrats for attempting to define economic "classes" in American society.

The Republicans are dead wrong in their criticism. American society comprises two classes: The extremely wealthy, and the rest of the working families. These classes are not defined by the Democratic Party. They are defined by the words and actions of the wealthy elite.

Here is how they define and create their exclusive social class:

• They isolate themselves from the hoipolloi by living in gated estates or gated communities
• They avoid the use of public transportation. They use private limousines instead of buses or trains; private yachts, or first-class accommodations on cruise ships; private jets in place of commercial airlines
• They have assistants do their shopping for them, and if they do shop for personal items, they have the shop owner close the shop to other customers while they are there
• They guard their income and their sources of income from taxation by receiving funds out of the country and storing their funds in offshore accounts
• They either are our nation's lawmakers, or they influence the lawmakers by means of contributions and personal favors. For example, the Federal tax code is full of special provisions for the wealthy--treating capital gains at a lower rate than other income, allowing adjustments credits and deductions applicable only to people of wealth

The wealthy elite have defined their own class, and you and I are not part of it. Just about anyone can knock on your front door and speak to you, face to face. That's not true for the wealthy elite.

Another Tax Proposal

Don't laugh too hard--it just might work, if the proposal is indeed revenue-neutral. Some specific provisions are essential:

• The $100,000.00 figure should be tied to an inflation index to protect upper-middle-income folks from drifting into the higher category.


• A more gradual transition to the upper bracket may be needed so that, for a person earning $98,000.00, a 4% raise does not give him a big cut in take-home pay.
  
• "Income" must be defined as gross, from all sources and activities; no "adjustments," no "allowances," no deductions, no loopholes.

Like any proposal, this one has its benefits and drawbacks. Readers can identify those and sort them out. In general, though, it is a promising attempt to spread the tax burden more fairly.

Rep. Rangel's Tax Proposal

I read an article about Rep. Charles Rangel's recent tax proposal in the Business Section of the L.A. Times for October 26. Some of my Republican friends may brand me a heretic when I say that his proposal is worth serious consideration. The ones who know me really well may understand why, though, and those who don't can read my posting on taxes (9/14/2007) and my posting on income inequality (6/24/2007) to sample some of my ideas on the subject. Like Rep. Rangel I firmly believe that we need to restore fairness to the tax code. I also think the plan needs some refinements.

If I can believe the Congressman and the article, the Rangel plan is revenue neutral, that is, the proposed tax increases in some areas would be offset by decreases in others. The right wing critics complain about the increases but do not mention the offsetting decreases. If you read my posting on income equality, you will see that I do not oppose shifting some of the tax burden to the extremely wealthy people.

When we talk about tax reforms for fairness, however, we need to be very clear on how the income is defined. That is, are we talking about gross income, or adjusted gross income, or taxable income? Both the second category and the last take into account adjustments and deductions that allow wealthy taxpayers to duck their fair share.

Another concern in Rep. Rangel's proposal is whom we define to be weathy. According to the Times article, less than 2 million taxpayers would see a tax increase under the plan, predominantly those who earn more than half a million dollars per year. Half a million is the number I would have picked, if it is considered to be gross income. But the Rangel plan imposes a 4% surcharge on households that earn at least $200,000.00 for couples filing jointly. That seems to dip well below the half million earned dollars per taxpayer mentioned in the article. Whatever number is chosen, it should be indexed in some way to inflation.

The plan increases the standard deduction, increases the Earned Income Tax credit for the working poor, and increases the refundable child tax credit. These changes clearly benefit wage earners who are not considered to be wealthy.

The plan proposes to cut the top tax rate for corporate income from 35% to 30.5%. This feature should diminish the concerns that the plan will cause job losses and other adverse economic impacts. The plan also eliminates current provisions that Rangel considers to be loopholes. I don't know which ones they are, but I am sure that there are some loopholes worth closing. The problem I see is that any increase in the taxes for businesses will be passed on to wage earners in the form of higher prices and/or work force reductions. That does not hold in the case of individual income--an increase in the top tax rate for wealthy individuals is worth considering.

The plan proposes eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. The fact that the income level at which the A.M.T. kicks in is too low and is not being adjusted for inflation makes me agree with this aspect of the plan. But the A.M.T. should only be eliminated if we also eliminate the loopholes and adjustments that allow members of the half-a-million-dollar-plus club to claim zero or minimal taxable income.

The plan increases taxes for managers of private-equity funds, who have been claiming their earnings at the 15% capital gains rate. This change is long overdue.

For many of the people in the half-a-million-dollar-plus club, wages did not comprise the majority of their income, and they did not pay at or near the top bracket rate of 35%. That's because of the myriad of provisions that create loopholes by allowing adjustments, deductions, and the re-categorizing of income. Serious consideration should be given to eliminating some of those provisions. I don't expect much help from Congress in this direction, as many of our legislators are members of the half-a-million-dollar-plus club, and they won't vote against their own personal interest.

Some people are terrified at the thought of a flat tax based on total income, above some defined poverty level, from all sources. If we could ensure that ALL income would be reported, the actual rate of that tax would lower than most people fear. But if we are unwilling to take the flat tax leap, then Representative Rangel's plan (with some fine tuning) deserves some serious consideration.

Ephemeral Culture

More and more people are downloading music in the form of MP3 files instead of purchasing CDs. All around us we see the demise of local record shops big and small. Some very important things are lost when CDs are replaced by MP3 downloads: sound quality, the artistic expressions of many great historic performers, and a tangible, durable storage medium.

Those who appreciate fine music are not satisfied to download "a song," play it a few times until they are tired of it, then discard it. Rather, they search out the best performance(s) of a symphony or a string quartet. They listen to it over and over to experience the nuances of emotion conveyed by the performer. They may put the recording aside for months, or even years, and then re-visit it for a renewed experience. They share it with friends. They hope that the sublime listening moments will be preserved for the enjoyment of future music lovers. The MP3 downloads are limited to recent performances, have reduced sound quality, and can disappear with the stroke of a key, or a power surge.

But only 3% of the population is sufficiently discriminating to pay the necessary cost of these treasures. Because our public schools are failing miserably to communicate the stronger cultural and aesthetic values, I worry that the size of this elite group will diminish.

To be financially sound, orchestras and recording companies must market to the other 97%--people who value things that are “good enough” for them: low cost, sound quality that is adequate for the low-cost playback machines, performances by people whose names they recognize, and the “instant gratification” that speedy delivery provides.

Fortunately, CDs were the medium of choice for several years before MP3 downloads became available. A greater variety and depth of music has been transferred to CD than was ever available on long playing records or magnetic tape. Some of the non-classical items in my collection demonstrate the scope: Sea shanties, Scottish pipes, Portuguese fados, the jazz recordings of Bix Beiderbecke. The rarities are hard to find, and they may have to be shipped across the country, but to those who appreciate them, they are worth the wait. They will probably never be available for download, because almost nobody is interested in them.

Some few entrepreneurs will pursue the 3% niche market, and continue to make CDs available. They will offer their products on the internet because they reach more potential customers than dozens of record shops, and they require only one inventory site. I really miss the opportunity to browse the bins of my local record store for historic recordings. But the inventory of the local record stores only touched the surface of the tremendous variety available. By searching the on-line sites, I can learn of their existence, locate them, and acquire them. I periodically check about 15 different sites for new releases, many of which are on small independent labels.

Much of the new technology does tend to isolate people. The philatelist who used to meet a few times a year with fellow collectors to buy, sell, and trade both stamps and information about them now seems content to sit in front of a keyboard and a monitor exchanging key strokes with other machines out there. The listener who downloads MP3s misses the opportunity to share opinions with fellow music lovers in the local record shop. We have even devised anwering machine 'trees' so that the telephone becomes an isolation machine instead of a means of talking with people. We are engaged in a struggle to make our machines work for us rather than letting them make us work for them. When we succeed, we are rewarded with great bounty. If we give in to the machines, the trend could make intellectual dummies and social cripples of us all.

Vivaldi Released

I just purchased a recent cd release of Vivaldi violin concertos, performed by Giuliano Carmignola violinist with Andrea Marcon and the Venice Baroque Orchestra. If you enjoy Vivaldi, and are tired of The Four Seasons, you should give this one a try. Carmignola's violin is passionate and fiery. The five concertos have not been recorded before. This premiere is wonderful listening.

Ironically it was his recording on Sony of The Four Seasons that introduced me to Carmignola. His approach to those over-recorded concertos is fresh and vigorous. Marcon and the Venice Baroque orchestra play with obvious love and enthusiasm for the music. Carmignola released two subsequent discs for Sony containing previously unrecorded Vivaldi concertos. All of them are wonderful listening.

In case you want to check it out, this recent release is on DGG Archive, B0006504-02.

Another Site for Classical CDs

I just added Universal Classics to the list of recorded music sites in the box at the right. This page has links to catalogs of Philips, Decca, and DGG compact discs.

Blog Anniversary

I planned to do this post last Tuesday.

Tuesday, September 11, 2008, was the sixth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. It was also the first anniversary of the my first blog posting. In the last year, some things that I discussed have improved, and some have not.

• Thanks to the idiots in the executive and legislative branches of our government, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be American political issues, as opposed to military issues, or parts of the campaign against terrorism. One group of politicians stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its errors, another group continues to be more concerned about their own political ambitions than about the safety of either Iraq or the U.S. They are just too self-centered and they have too much power and too little knowledge or intelligence to do the right things.
• Hatred and ad hominum attacks continue to pervade the American political scene, as opposed to sensible, concrete proposals to improve our society. The voters are still voting for the smile and the charisma of ignorant and crooked candidates instead of supporting people who show exceptional knowledge of the problems to be solved. Politicians who are not intelligent enough to propose a better solution than their opponents investigate and denigrate them instead.
• The politicians talk about compromise, cooperation, and eliminating corruption. But their actions are exactly the opposite of their rhetoric.
• We have seen little progress toward securing our borders to eliminate illegal immigration while establishing a sensible program for importing temporary labor. This continues to be a political issue, as opposed to a social problem. Politicians sense that no one comes away from a compromise completely happy. They fear losing votes and financial support resulting from a solution more than they dislike the damage resulting from the status quo.
• "Political correctness" continues to poison our literature, our entertainment, and even our daily actions. People just do not understand that by eliminating or changing a word or other symbol we cannot abolish either a concept or a past event. But they find it easier to "erase" the symbol than to teach people the proper understanding of the concept or the perspective of the event. When you erase the symbol, the concept still exists--it just becomes represented by another symbol. The hard solution is the right one, but we remain too lazy to work it.

But it's not all bad--I just lament the lack of progress on some of my most vexing issues. Bonnie says that I am too cynical, and that I should look on the bright side and talk about happier stuff. So I will do that.

• In spite of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and the housing boom and bust, the nation's economy is fairly robust and unemployment is relatively low.
• From I-phones to HDTV to X-boxes, we have more technological advances and high--tech toys than our grandfathers ever dreamed of. I don't use many myself, but many people are enjoying them.
• My personal life continues to be as positive and rewarding as I can make it. I made significant progress on the plans for a convention of the American Political Items Collectors in Las Vegas in August, 2008. And, my own campaign collection has seen modest gains.
• Despite the demise of Tower Records, I have added some excellent classical CDs to my collection, giving me many hours of listening enjoyment.
• My renewed interest in the ukulele has brought me some pleasure, probably not as much for Bonnie. I added about a dozen songs to my repertoire.
• My part-time teaching job has enabled me to enrich the knowledge and values of hundreds of young children. And it has added some really fine acquaintances to my network.
• Although we blew right through our initial budget, Bonnie and I are pleased with the results so far in the redecoration of our living room and dining room. We are about 80% done, and we like it every bit as much as we hoped to.
• Bonnie and I and the two shar peis are all enjoying reasonably good health. We have begun to adjust to a more healthy diet, and have shed more than a few excess pounds.
• Thanks to the computer and the internet I have been able to maintain contact with many long-term friends, and to make some valuable additions to that network. We mostly swap humorous emails, but we also exchange ideas and information.
• Bonnie and I are fortunate to live close to both of our daughters and their husbands. To see their happiness and success is a source of joy to us.

So, I continue to make the most of the things that I can control. And for those things beyond my control, I will use the blog as my soap box. Maybe in a small way I can encourage somebody to take some steps in the right direction. Besides my own visits, the blog has experienced well over a thousand hits. It must be very boring, or a lot of readers share my views, because I have only received a couple of comments against over 100 postings.

Taxes

Someone once said that the essence of a communist philosophy is that people should contribute to the society according to their ability, and derive from society according to their need. To capitalist, that is the wildest form of heresy; rather, one should derive in proportion to his ability.

Several presidential candidates in the Democratic party have been criticized for proposing tax increases in order to increase existing welfare programs and to add new ones. They claim that they only want to tax the wealthy, but many of the folks they call wealthy don't have much more to contribute. Candidates in the Republican party claim tax cuts for the wealthy increase revenue and improve the economy, but many of the extremely wealthy are performing artists, athletes, and politicians who neither develop nor produce new products nor do they hire large numbers of employees.

Part of the conflict is that while the term "wealth" is relatively easy to define, the term "need" is a little more ambiguous. For example, as a person's wealth increases, so does his "need." Most of us can get along just fine owning one house; many feel the need for a second "summer home;" and the very wealthy "need" to maintain several homes. The need for cars, TV sets, and many other items also grows as a person's wealth increases. I can get along fine with 2 or 3 business suits in my closet, but a wealthy man "needs" two dozen suits. A two thousand square foot house is adequate for most folks to live in, but when you are wealthy, you "need" a 20,000 square foot house on 10 acres of land. The wealthy few "need" all of these things that the other 99% of us consider to be pure excess. They cling to their excesses, and will not cut back on them to help the poor.

For even the poorest people, "need" has increased significantly. People who can barely afford food for the table have satellite dishes on their rooftops, tied to multiple TV sets. They are behind on their mortgage and utility bills, but their children have cell phones and wear designer shoes to school. And the politicians tell us that EVERYONE needs access to a computer.

Most of the people who draft our tax laws are wealthy. They are members of that elite 1 or 2 percent of our population whose annual income exceeds $500,000.00. While they claim to increase taxes for the "wealthy," they actually want to raise the taxes of folks whose annual income is in the $50,000.00 to $499,000.00 range. Their rationale is that the "over $500,000.00 club" are already paying more than their "fair share."

But in reality, 99% of us would really feel the pinch if our income tax increased by, say, $2,000.00 next year. But do you think for a minute that an executive, an athlete, or an actor who earns $3 million dollars next year would have to endure hardship to deal with an increase of even one hundred times that much?

Some people will argue that many of the wealthy are indeed generous--they build schools for the underprivileged, they donate computers to the public schools, etc., etc. That is true, but their is a big difference between what they do and what they want us to do. You see, they determine not only how much they will give, but when and to whom they will give it. They know that their money will be better spent if they donate directly to the cause than it would if they gave it to the government to spend. And, if they want to buy a new private jet this year, they will skip the donation.

The rich don't want you to have those choices. You will be forced under penalty of law to donate an amount they determine to the government every year. The people who set the policies and the people who write our tax laws are mostly members of that wealthiest 1%. They don't want to forego their third house or their fifth automobile, so they will increase the taxes of the people in the upper middle income range. This also serves as a barrier to keep others from joining their ranks and competing for the luxuries.

It's not an organized conspiracy; they wealthy just think that way. The extremely wealthy are the "royalty" in an otherwise democratic society. They exempt themselves from the very requirements they place on the commoners. They agree with each other, and they write the laws. You see, it's a really good deal for over half of the voters who get the handouts but not the tax increases. That's why the rich guys keep getting re-elected. They "buy" their votes with entitlements that are funded by our tax money, not their own. The result is forced charity. Think about that before you select the next candidate to get your vote.

Airlines: Overbooking and Bumping

A recent opinion piece in the Orange County Register attempted to justify the policy of most airlines to overbook flights, then bump some passengers to a later flight.

I almost never travel by air anymore because the reductions in service and the added security measures have eliminated what little enjoyment used to be associated with the experience.

The writer of the opinion piece bases his position on the following arguments:

1. Only about 1.45 of every 10,000 passengers get bumped.
2. People who make last minute reservations are actually more likely to get a seat. Without the overbooking policy, they would not have the opportunity to get a seat reserved by a "no-show."
3. The overbooking policy permits more planes to fly at full capacity, so all flyers benefit from the lower fare per seat.

On the surface the article seems to make sense, but I am concerned about those 1.45 passengers who get stiffed. The author gives us no data about the percentage of seats that are "no-show," or about how many last-minute flyers benefit from getting those seats. If those who benefit amount to 30 or even 3 per 10,000, it may "offset" the inconvenience for the 1.45 who are bumped.

The lack of data on the number of no-shows also gives us no insight into the financial benefit for the 9,998.55 passengers who get seats. If, on those flights, there are only 500 no-shows, the per ticket savings on fares may be around $5.00. So the 9,998.55 passengers are $5.00 per person happier at the expense of those 1.45 people who are grievously inconvenienced.

In the absence of more data, it appears to be another business decision that benefits the airline company by dumping on some of its customers.

Redecoration, Part 4

Well, the painting is finished. It involved 4 colors: a medium gold ("Blonde") for the walls in the living room and dining room, a light gold (Ivoire) for the ceilings and for the entry and the hall, a dark brown for the built in cabinets in the living room, and a white (Atrium White) for the baseboards, doors, and crown moldings.

We learned a lot about the effects of different kinds of light on the perceived color. Window light and incandescent lamp light make a single pigment appear two be two different colors. During the day, the light from the living room windows makes the walls look lighter than the dining room walls, but at night, they look more nearly the same. Although the walls and the ceiling of the entry way are the same color (Ivoire), the ceiling looks darker than the walls, which get more light. Although the hall is the same color (Ivoire) as the ceilings and the entry way, it looks much darker--almost the same as the (Blonde) walls in the dining room. Even within the dining room, two of the walls appear to be a darker gold than the other two. The lesson is that it is impossible to select colors based on small paint chips in a store. You need to get large samples, bring them home, and hold them to the walls in all of the areas you plan to paint. Better yet is to buy a quart of the paint you think will work, and paint 2'x 2' squares on every surface that you plan to paint. Even after we did that, the results were sometimes surprising, but, I might add, very pleasing.

I did the last of the painting Thursday, well behind my original plan. The delay had no effect on the overall schedule, however, as we are awaiting delivery of a ceiling medallion for the dining room. When that arrives, the carpenters can install it and the decorative overlays for the cabinets and mantel in the living room. And the electrician can install both the chandelier in the dining room and the rope lighting inside the crown molding in the dining room and the hall.

The job has not been problem-free. The pocket door from the kitchen into the hall came off its track. Repair would entail cutting a large section of dry wall out of the hall, and could cost from $300 to $800, depending on what we find is wrong. We decided just to leave it open for now. The painters accidentally knocked over a 7-foot etagere in the living room, and shattered the glass mirror backing. They will get it fixed for us, but that is going to take a while.

I have already installed new ceiling lights in the hall and the entryway. And the dining room table arrived Thursday afternoon. It is our first large piece of new furniture, and we both love it.

Since the entry way is complete, we plan to replace the decorative accessories we had in there today.

So it is pretty much downhill from here. We still need revised estimates on drapes for the living room and dining room (the first plan was just too expensive). We are waiting for the rest of the furniture to arrive. The rest is just accessories (lamps, paintings/prints, etc.).

We are still trying to hold the total cost to just about twice our original budget. The main reason is that reproductions of Victorian furniture are very expensive. Because they are typically very ornate, most of them are hand-made, often in North Carolina. The quality of the woods, the finishes and the decorative inlays also drive the cost up. But we believe the enjoyment we get from the Victorian look will be worth the expense. You can be sure, though, that the results will not be described as "contemporary," "clean lines," or other euphemisms for modern bland.

When the job is completed, I will post some pictures to the blog.