Even the gainfully employed with families. No, wait, that's a former senator. I bet he thinks the issue is more complicated now.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Notes on polls
In my previous post, I noted that as 70% of voters in Arizona supported the new immigrant check law, but only 58% of the population was Non-Hispanic White, it was difficult to attribute the results to White racism. It was suggested in comments that possibly the pollsters didn't have a representative sample; perhaps those polled were 85% White. I didn't think it likely; Rasmussen is a respected firm- but I decided I'd check their raw data. I ran into a glitch: the raw data is available, but you have to buy a membership to get it.
Unwilling to spend the money, I looked around and found this very in-depth and fascinating poll from The Pew Hispanic Center It's a couple years old, but in a way, that's better- it's recent enough for the border troubles to be relevant, but not so recent as to be affected by the current political uproar over Arizona.
Some interesting points: "About a quarter of Hispanic adults are unauthorized immigrants, most of them arriving as part of a heavy wave of immigration that began gathering force in the 1970s." That's an astonishing figure right off the bat. Hispanics settled a great deal of what is now the United States; they were the majority non-indigenous peoples in the west and the south, from Florida to California, in the early years of US history. If today a quarter of Hispanic adults are not native born, then illegal immigration, especially in the last couple decades, must have been far greater than most of us in the northern half of the country realized.
That figure also puts an interesting perspective on many of the numbers that follow. For example, on immigration enforcement issues, the report says, "Latinos themselves also have differences on these issues, especially between the foreign born and native born. On all three questions, foreign-born Hispanics are more opposed to the stepped-up enforcement policies than are native-born Hispanics. The breakdown is as follows: 83% of the foreign born do not support active involvement by local police in immigration enforcement, compared with 74% of the native born; 84% of foreign-born Latinos disapprove of workplace raids, compared with 63% of native-born Latinos; and 66% of the foreign born disapprove of states checking immigration status before issuing driver’s licenses, compared with 39% of the native born." Let's break that down a little further: if 74% of the native born do not support active involvement by local police in immigration enforcement, and only 75% of the total are native born, then only 55% of the possible Hispanic voters are opposed.
As these are national numbers, and a couple years old, they would not reflect any new problems occurring in Arizona today. If we took the normal 45% White support for local enforcement with an estimated 40% of possible Hispanic voters, times the local Arizona demographic skew, that's 48% of the possible voters in Arizona who might have been expected to support the new enforcement law in normal times- throw in a crime wave that largely victimizes Hispanics, and it starts to look like Rasmussen's numbers aren't so unbelievable.
Another interesting point is about the perceptions of discrimination. "Asked to choose among four possible causes of discrimination against Hispanics, nearly half (46%) of all respondents say language is the biggest cause; 22% say immigration status; 16% say income and education; and 11% say skin color." I find that interesting because the Hispanic community seems to have a higher opinion of their fellow humanity than UUs do. I'm unaware of any polls on the subject, but my perception is that a clear majority of UUs believes that skin color is the biggest single issue in the minds of White Americans.
Yet another fascinating point is the Hispanic view on the quality of life here. "About seven-in-ten Hispanics describe their quality of life as excellent (26%) or good (45%). Also, 78% of respondents say they are very or somewhat confident that Latino children growing up now in the U.S. will have better jobs and make more money than they themselves have." Again, that seems more upbeat than my perception of UUs, many of whom seem to believe the country is going to Hell in a hand basket, or at least it would if Hell existed.
There's a lot more, too, about the Hispanic views on the right number of immigrants, language, etc- it's a fascinating read, I recommend it.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Behind the Arizona law and illegal immigration
Let me begin by saying that I believe the new law in Arizona requiring police to check documents is unconstitutional on the grounds of usurping federal authority. But what caused the Arizona legislature to pass it, the governor to sign it, and 70% of the citizens of Arizona to support it?
Judging by what I read from UU bloggers, that's a ridiculous question- it's racism, pure and simple; no need to look for any other reason. OK, let's address that head on. According to a Rasmussen poll taken April 21st, "...70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it." But according to the US Census Bureau, Arizona doesn't have that many white people- "White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%." Huh. Ok, let's throw African Americans into the mix- (Yes, I know only white people can be racist, but I'm trying to get to the numbers here) "Black persons, percent, 2008 (a) 4.2%." Hmm... that still leaves us way short of 70%. Whatever, no Hispanic would be in favor of it, right? "Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%" Wow, that's 130% of the opposition...
Well, forget the numbers- the law is so outrageous, racism must be behind it, right? What other country would do such a thing? Well, nearly all them, it turns out- including, according to Amnesty International, Mexico: "At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."
So if maybe there's more than racism at work here, what could it possibly be? Well, let's look at the headlines from Arizona recently... from Newsmax.com:
"The near-daily kidnappings and home invasions in Phoenix often involve masked gunmen armed with high-powered assault rifles and bulletproof vests, emulating tactical strike-team maneuvers to force others to forfeit drugs or cash. Roughly half of all marijuana seized along the U.S.-Mexico border was taken on Arizona's 370-mile border with Mexico. The targets are usually drug stash houses and their keepers scattered throughout the region. Both the perpetrators and their victims tend to be Mexicans with roots in the Mexican state of Sinaloa. Phoenix has long been a destination for Sinaloans, and only the rare kidnapper is not from Sinaloa, according to detectives." Then there's this NY Times story about Tuscon: "Since officials here formed a special squad last year to deal with home invasions, they have counted more than 200 of them, with more than three-quarters linked to the drug trade. In one case, the intruders burst into the wrong house, shooting and injuring a woman watching television on her couch.... The amount of violence has drastically increased in the last 6 to 12 months, especially in the area of home invasions, “ said Lt. Michael O’Connor of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department here. “The people we have arrested, a high percentage are from Mexico.”
Hmm... I wonder how many of the people looking down their noses at Arizona today would be on their high horse if they had 200 home invasion assaults in a single year in their own home towns. Well, if nothing is done, they may get the chance to find out- from the same article: "Tucson is hardly alone in feeling the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade. In the past few years, the cartels and other drug trafficking organizations have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada. Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
United States law enforcement officials have identified 230 cities, including Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston and Billings, Mont., where Mexican cartels and their affiliates “maintain drug distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors,” as a Justice Department report put it in December. The figure rose from 100 cities reported three years earlier, though Justice Department officials said that may be because of better data collection methods as well as the spread of the organizations."
But forget for the moment Arizona's justifiable anger at the federal government for failing to enforce its own laws, or protect their citizens from what amounts to a de facto foreign military invasion. Forget the drugs. Forget the people who talk about jobs. There are still other reasons to address the issue of illegal immigration. Those who argue- and this seems to be a majority of the UUA- that people should be able to "wander free, Where–so us listeth, uncontroll'd of any", are doing more harm than good to the poor and oppressed they would help.
The people of Central and South America, trying to get to the US, find nothing but more oppression in Mexico on the way here, according to Amnesty International "Rupert Knox, Amnesty's Mexico researcher, said in the report that the failure by authorities to tackle abuses against migrants has made their trip through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.
"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," Knox said.
Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.
Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process."
And what of the people of Mexico itself? Mexico is one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on Earth. Any other nation so corrupt would have collapsed decades ago, but the Mexican regime is being propped up by illegal immigration to the US in two ways: first, in the money sent home- until the current recession caused a drop off, it was the largest source of income for Mexico, surpassing even oil; it's still a close second at this moment- and the Mexican government gets a cut during the electronic transmission of these remittances. Secondly, the Mexican government can and does encourage the discontented to come here instead of facing down the corrupt government. That safety valve relieves the oligarchy from any need to address the grinding poverty, the criminal gangs who rule the streets, the bought-and-sold justice.
How bad is it? By some estimates- not the highest- 20% of the population of Mexico has already come here, and 46% of those remaining would come here if they could- including among those who earn well above the minimum wage and are well educated. And those are the people Mexico would need to rebuild its own economy, its own infrastructure- if there was any desire to. But why should they want to? The oligarchs are getting rich, and the people who would in any other country revolt just leave instead- a grand formula, if you're one of those on top. And those here who argue for open borders are unwittingly doing their part in propping up the regime.
UPDATE: As we were debating crime statistics, this was happening in the open desert of Arizona:
Yes, this is coincidental, anecdotal, but... when people don't feel safe in their own homes, it does no good to say, "Suck it up; things are worse in my home town". I think a tipping point was reached when rancher Rob Krentz was shot- he was known to help illegal immigrants; I imagine people thought to themselves, "If he can be murdered on his own land, what chance do I have?"
Look- suppose you have someone dropping bricks off an Interstate bridge. Statistically, you may still have the safest roads in the country. Statistically, you can probably prove that you would actually save more lives by setting up speed traps to lower highway speeds than wasting the manpower chasing one man... but the people will demand you go after what they feel more threatened by. That's what's happening in Arizona- the criminal gangs hiding amongst the normal immigrants are what's terrifying them, and no amount of "Well, in the greater scheme of things..." is going to allay those fears.
UPDATE: UU Blogger Will Shetterly lives in Arizona, and reports, "Emma and I marched with thousands of Tucsonans for immigration reform. There was a very small group of supporters of Arizona idiocy across the park from us, maybe thirty when we got there. (Emma and I were at the end of the march, so some might've left before the march was over.) A point for people who think this is exclusively about racism: at least two of the supporters were Hispanic." This is all I've been trying to say here. While not a good law, and no doubt unconstitutional, it is genuinely popular not because evil KKK types hate Hispanics, but because ordinary people of all stripes feel their government is doing nothing.
Judging by what I read from UU bloggers, that's a ridiculous question- it's racism, pure and simple; no need to look for any other reason. OK, let's address that head on. According to a Rasmussen poll taken April 21st, "...70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it." But according to the US Census Bureau, Arizona doesn't have that many white people- "White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%." Huh. Ok, let's throw African Americans into the mix- (Yes, I know only white people can be racist, but I'm trying to get to the numbers here) "Black persons, percent, 2008 (a) 4.2%." Hmm... that still leaves us way short of 70%. Whatever, no Hispanic would be in favor of it, right? "Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%" Wow, that's 130% of the opposition...
Well, forget the numbers- the law is so outrageous, racism must be behind it, right? What other country would do such a thing? Well, nearly all them, it turns out- including, according to Amnesty International, Mexico: "At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."
So if maybe there's more than racism at work here, what could it possibly be? Well, let's look at the headlines from Arizona recently... from Newsmax.com:
"The near-daily kidnappings and home invasions in Phoenix often involve masked gunmen armed with high-powered assault rifles and bulletproof vests, emulating tactical strike-team maneuvers to force others to forfeit drugs or cash. Roughly half of all marijuana seized along the U.S.-Mexico border was taken on Arizona's 370-mile border with Mexico. The targets are usually drug stash houses and their keepers scattered throughout the region. Both the perpetrators and their victims tend to be Mexicans with roots in the Mexican state of Sinaloa. Phoenix has long been a destination for Sinaloans, and only the rare kidnapper is not from Sinaloa, according to detectives." Then there's this NY Times story about Tuscon: "Since officials here formed a special squad last year to deal with home invasions, they have counted more than 200 of them, with more than three-quarters linked to the drug trade. In one case, the intruders burst into the wrong house, shooting and injuring a woman watching television on her couch.... The amount of violence has drastically increased in the last 6 to 12 months, especially in the area of home invasions, “ said Lt. Michael O’Connor of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department here. “The people we have arrested, a high percentage are from Mexico.”
Hmm... I wonder how many of the people looking down their noses at Arizona today would be on their high horse if they had 200 home invasion assaults in a single year in their own home towns. Well, if nothing is done, they may get the chance to find out- from the same article: "Tucson is hardly alone in feeling the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade. In the past few years, the cartels and other drug trafficking organizations have extended their reach across the United States and into Canada. Law enforcement authorities say they believe traffickers distributing the cartels’ marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs are responsible for a rash of shootings in Vancouver, British Columbia, kidnappings in Phoenix, brutal assaults in Birmingham, Ala., and much more.
United States law enforcement officials have identified 230 cities, including Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston and Billings, Mont., where Mexican cartels and their affiliates “maintain drug distribution networks or supply drugs to distributors,” as a Justice Department report put it in December. The figure rose from 100 cities reported three years earlier, though Justice Department officials said that may be because of better data collection methods as well as the spread of the organizations."
But forget for the moment Arizona's justifiable anger at the federal government for failing to enforce its own laws, or protect their citizens from what amounts to a de facto foreign military invasion. Forget the drugs. Forget the people who talk about jobs. There are still other reasons to address the issue of illegal immigration. Those who argue- and this seems to be a majority of the UUA- that people should be able to "wander free, Where–so us listeth, uncontroll'd of any", are doing more harm than good to the poor and oppressed they would help.
The people of Central and South America, trying to get to the US, find nothing but more oppression in Mexico on the way here, according to Amnesty International "Rupert Knox, Amnesty's Mexico researcher, said in the report that the failure by authorities to tackle abuses against migrants has made their trip through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.
"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," Knox said.
Central American migrants are frequently pulled off trains, kidnapped en masse, held at gang hideouts and forced to call relatives in the U.S. to pay off the kidnappers. Such kidnappings affect thousands of migrants each year in Mexico, the report says.
Many are beaten, raped or killed in the process."
And what of the people of Mexico itself? Mexico is one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on Earth. Any other nation so corrupt would have collapsed decades ago, but the Mexican regime is being propped up by illegal immigration to the US in two ways: first, in the money sent home- until the current recession caused a drop off, it was the largest source of income for Mexico, surpassing even oil; it's still a close second at this moment- and the Mexican government gets a cut during the electronic transmission of these remittances. Secondly, the Mexican government can and does encourage the discontented to come here instead of facing down the corrupt government. That safety valve relieves the oligarchy from any need to address the grinding poverty, the criminal gangs who rule the streets, the bought-and-sold justice.
How bad is it? By some estimates- not the highest- 20% of the population of Mexico has already come here, and 46% of those remaining would come here if they could- including among those who earn well above the minimum wage and are well educated. And those are the people Mexico would need to rebuild its own economy, its own infrastructure- if there was any desire to. But why should they want to? The oligarchs are getting rich, and the people who would in any other country revolt just leave instead- a grand formula, if you're one of those on top. And those here who argue for open borders are unwittingly doing their part in propping up the regime.
UPDATE: As we were debating crime statistics, this was happening in the open desert of Arizona:
Yes, this is coincidental, anecdotal, but... when people don't feel safe in their own homes, it does no good to say, "Suck it up; things are worse in my home town". I think a tipping point was reached when rancher Rob Krentz was shot- he was known to help illegal immigrants; I imagine people thought to themselves, "If he can be murdered on his own land, what chance do I have?"
Look- suppose you have someone dropping bricks off an Interstate bridge. Statistically, you may still have the safest roads in the country. Statistically, you can probably prove that you would actually save more lives by setting up speed traps to lower highway speeds than wasting the manpower chasing one man... but the people will demand you go after what they feel more threatened by. That's what's happening in Arizona- the criminal gangs hiding amongst the normal immigrants are what's terrifying them, and no amount of "Well, in the greater scheme of things..." is going to allay those fears.
UPDATE: UU Blogger Will Shetterly lives in Arizona, and reports, "Emma and I marched with thousands of Tucsonans for immigration reform. There was a very small group of supporters of Arizona idiocy across the park from us, maybe thirty when we got there. (Emma and I were at the end of the march, so some might've left before the march was over.) A point for people who think this is exclusively about racism: at least two of the supporters were Hispanic." This is all I've been trying to say here. While not a good law, and no doubt unconstitutional, it is genuinely popular not because evil KKK types hate Hispanics, but because ordinary people of all stripes feel their government is doing nothing.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The stalker is back
In September of last year, I wrote about a reader with an excessive, possibly unhealthy interest in me. Once again I have had the dubious pleasure of this person's attentions: first with the reader's own blog post discussing the contents of my pants, and boasting about lighting a fire therein; then a, shall we say, off topic comment submitted to this blog concerning my lips that I declined to publish.
I really don't know how I can make it any clearer to this person that I am not interested in a relationship. Perhaps it is hopeless; I know that in this blogger's home town another poor unfortunate was forced to seek a restraining order, and the court was concerned enough to grant it. Sheer distance makes it unlikely that I will need to do the same- but given this individual's numerous and bizarre obsessions, one never knows. I hope- not just for my sake, or even the sakes of the others this reader has pursued so relentlessly, but for the reader's own sake- that the reader will seek the help so desperately needed, and rejoin polite society. I would welcome the reader back, should it ever happen.
I really don't know how I can make it any clearer to this person that I am not interested in a relationship. Perhaps it is hopeless; I know that in this blogger's home town another poor unfortunate was forced to seek a restraining order, and the court was concerned enough to grant it. Sheer distance makes it unlikely that I will need to do the same- but given this individual's numerous and bizarre obsessions, one never knows. I hope- not just for my sake, or even the sakes of the others this reader has pursued so relentlessly, but for the reader's own sake- that the reader will seek the help so desperately needed, and rejoin polite society. I would welcome the reader back, should it ever happen.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Goodbye, Rene
This morning Ginger and I attended the memorial service for Rene Julien Defourneaux I've known Rene since shortly after I joined All Souls back in 1996. I should say we've been friends since then, because he was a generous man who loved people, and made friends easily- and easily doesn't mean lightly; he always cared.
As cheerful and affable and amusing as he always was, it would be easy to miss how extraordinary he was, and his life had been. The description of The Winking Fox, a book about his experiences in the Army: "The Winking Fox is the captivating self-account of a U.S. Army Officer, who as a young Frenchman shortly before WWII, came to the United States to join his father who had emigrated twelve years earlier. In 1943, disheartened and discouraged by the desperate military situation, he joined the U.S. Army. Trained as an intelligence specialist, he was recruited by OSS and trained as an agent by SOE he parachuted alone into occupied France to organize and train French resistance groups. After the liberation of Paris, he was transferred to Asia where he served as second in command of a team parachuted into Japanese held French Indochina in support of a group assembled by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyên Giap. Shortly after WWII he was recalled to active duty and served twenty years as an Army intelligence officer with duty in Europe, Asia and the United States."
But that only begins to touch on his fascinating life. From the memorial order of service: "During Rene's lifetime, his vocations and avocations could be listed as: artist, bread baker extraordinaire, smuggler, tool and die maker, photographer, carpenter, spy, private detective, coin and stamp collector, importer/exporter, author, raconteur and public speaker." And that list doesn't mention father, Kiwanian, promoter of Indianapolis, bell ringer for the Salvation Army, and much, much more.
I wish I could have known him better. Goodbye, Rene.
As cheerful and affable and amusing as he always was, it would be easy to miss how extraordinary he was, and his life had been. The description of The Winking Fox, a book about his experiences in the Army: "The Winking Fox is the captivating self-account of a U.S. Army Officer, who as a young Frenchman shortly before WWII, came to the United States to join his father who had emigrated twelve years earlier. In 1943, disheartened and discouraged by the desperate military situation, he joined the U.S. Army. Trained as an intelligence specialist, he was recruited by OSS and trained as an agent by SOE he parachuted alone into occupied France to organize and train French resistance groups. After the liberation of Paris, he was transferred to Asia where he served as second in command of a team parachuted into Japanese held French Indochina in support of a group assembled by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyên Giap. Shortly after WWII he was recalled to active duty and served twenty years as an Army intelligence officer with duty in Europe, Asia and the United States."
But that only begins to touch on his fascinating life. From the memorial order of service: "During Rene's lifetime, his vocations and avocations could be listed as: artist, bread baker extraordinaire, smuggler, tool and die maker, photographer, carpenter, spy, private detective, coin and stamp collector, importer/exporter, author, raconteur and public speaker." And that list doesn't mention father, Kiwanian, promoter of Indianapolis, bell ringer for the Salvation Army, and much, much more.
I wish I could have known him better. Goodbye, Rene.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, April 09, 2010
Tax freedom day...
But not spending freedom day. We have earned enough in 99 days to cover our tax burden for 2010- but we're spending more than we're paying in taxes. $1,170,000,000,000 more. If we earn $2.38 Trillion (the 2010 estimated receipts) in 99 days, then it would take 148 days to earn the $3.55 Trillion we're actually spending- so spending freedom day is May 28.
Imagine for a moment that we had a balanced budget. Hard to do, I realize, as there hasn't been a balanced budget in more than 50 years*; just try. Suppose we wanted to add a few days to our tax freedom day, dedicated to paying off the national debt. How many days would we have to add? Well, if we paid $2.38 Trillion in 99 days, then covering our $12.83 Trillion debt (today's total) would take 534 days. So, assuming we never run another penny in deficits ever again, if we added 30 days to tax freedom day every year, it would take 18 years. Just in time (maybe) to start borrowing again to cover Social Security.
Nothing to worry about.
*I'm sure somebody is going to say we had balanced budgets in the Clinton years. That's the biggest bipartisan lie I know of. If you look at the year-by-year history of the national debt from the Treasury Dept., you'll see that the national debt increased during those "balanced budget" years. I know politicians have, shall we say interesting definitions of words (such as describing income tax as "voluntary"), but no bankruptcy judge would describe a budget that results in an increase in your debt load as "balanced".
Thursday, April 08, 2010
One more post about the federal deficits
In a previous post, I spoke of the need to pay down at least some of the national debt to avoid paying junk-bond interest rates when we have to borrow to cover the Social Security payments to retired baby boomers- something that will occur no later than 20 years from now, and possibly within 15 years.
Someone brought to my attention a paper from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project by the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute, entitled "Desperately Seeking Revenue" "This paper poses a simple question: could incremental reforms of the current tax system raise enough revenue to reduce the deficit to an average of 2 percent of GDP over the last five years of the budget window?" Before I continue, let me note that they aren't even trying to balance the budget, much less pay down the debt; the intent is only to reduce the amount of the annual deficit.
"Raise tax rates proportionately on single taxpayers with income over $200,000 and married couples filing jointly with income over $250,000. This policy would impose tax increases only on those taxpayers targeted by President Obama during the 2008 presidential election for tax increases under the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We model a proportional increase in tax rates for taxpayers for whom adjusted gross income minus the standard deduction and one personal exemption (two exemptions for married couples) exceeds the relevant threshold. To meet our revenue target under current law, the top two tax rates would have to increase more than 40 percent, lifting the top rate to 56.4 percent. Under the administration baseline, the top rates would leap by 160 percent, lifting the top rate to nearly 91 percent. (my emphasis)
None of the options we have examined would provide a realistic approach to reducing the deficit over the coming decade, particularly if we impose our more stringent goal of cutting the deficit to just 2 percent of GDP. That goal would require tax increases that would cut after-tax income by an average of just over 2 percent, a politically difficult action. All of the changes we examine would be progressive, imposing greater costs on those higher up the income distribution; some of the options would be significantly more progressive than others. However, the most progressive— raising tax rates only for the wealthiest taxpayers—would require increasing the top tax rate to 56.4 percent under current law and to over 90 percent under the administration baseline. Because most of the additional tax burden would hit the top end of the income distribution, either situation would impose substantial efficiency costs on the economy, raise less revenue than generated in our simple simulations that ignore behavioral effects, and meet with great political opposition.
We recognize that raising the statutory corporate income tax rate could increase revenues but would be unlikely to contribute much to deficit reduction. Corporate income taxes make up only a small percentage of federal revenues— less than 9 percent of total revenue and less than one-fifth of individual income tax revenue over the ten year budget window, according to CBO projections. Whether reforming the corporate tax could do much to bring in needed funds is an open question. The U.S. statutory rate is high by international standards; Japan is the only OECD country with a higher combined federal-state statutory corporate tax rate. Raising the corporate rate significantly would likely have adverse effects on U.S. businesses and on foreign investment in the United States. We do not rule out corporate tax increases (through either statutory rate increases or base broadening), but we feel that raising significant revenues through the corporate tax is not a viable strategy.
If your eyes have glazed over by now, let me summarize: it is simply not possible to balance the budget by raising taxes. Even a serious attempt to do so would have such a negative impact on the economy as to actually reduce tax receipts. We cannot grow our way out of the deficit in time- not when the deficit alone is larger than the entire US budget when Bill Clinton took office.
Without a dramatic change in the way our government operates- and soon- the federal government will be forced to default in the next 20 years. Either default on loans, or default on the promises made in the Social Security, but one way or the other something will have to give.
Someone brought to my attention a paper from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project by the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute, entitled "Desperately Seeking Revenue" "This paper poses a simple question: could incremental reforms of the current tax system raise enough revenue to reduce the deficit to an average of 2 percent of GDP over the last five years of the budget window?" Before I continue, let me note that they aren't even trying to balance the budget, much less pay down the debt; the intent is only to reduce the amount of the annual deficit.
"Raise tax rates proportionately on single taxpayers with income over $200,000 and married couples filing jointly with income over $250,000. This policy would impose tax increases only on those taxpayers targeted by President Obama during the 2008 presidential election for tax increases under the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We model a proportional increase in tax rates for taxpayers for whom adjusted gross income minus the standard deduction and one personal exemption (two exemptions for married couples) exceeds the relevant threshold. To meet our revenue target under current law, the top two tax rates would have to increase more than 40 percent, lifting the top rate to 56.4 percent. Under the administration baseline, the top rates would leap by 160 percent, lifting the top rate to nearly 91 percent. (my emphasis)
None of the options we have examined would provide a realistic approach to reducing the deficit over the coming decade, particularly if we impose our more stringent goal of cutting the deficit to just 2 percent of GDP. That goal would require tax increases that would cut after-tax income by an average of just over 2 percent, a politically difficult action. All of the changes we examine would be progressive, imposing greater costs on those higher up the income distribution; some of the options would be significantly more progressive than others. However, the most progressive— raising tax rates only for the wealthiest taxpayers—would require increasing the top tax rate to 56.4 percent under current law and to over 90 percent under the administration baseline. Because most of the additional tax burden would hit the top end of the income distribution, either situation would impose substantial efficiency costs on the economy, raise less revenue than generated in our simple simulations that ignore behavioral effects, and meet with great political opposition.
We recognize that raising the statutory corporate income tax rate could increase revenues but would be unlikely to contribute much to deficit reduction. Corporate income taxes make up only a small percentage of federal revenues— less than 9 percent of total revenue and less than one-fifth of individual income tax revenue over the ten year budget window, according to CBO projections. Whether reforming the corporate tax could do much to bring in needed funds is an open question. The U.S. statutory rate is high by international standards; Japan is the only OECD country with a higher combined federal-state statutory corporate tax rate. Raising the corporate rate significantly would likely have adverse effects on U.S. businesses and on foreign investment in the United States. We do not rule out corporate tax increases (through either statutory rate increases or base broadening), but we feel that raising significant revenues through the corporate tax is not a viable strategy.
If your eyes have glazed over by now, let me summarize: it is simply not possible to balance the budget by raising taxes. Even a serious attempt to do so would have such a negative impact on the economy as to actually reduce tax receipts. We cannot grow our way out of the deficit in time- not when the deficit alone is larger than the entire US budget when Bill Clinton took office.
Without a dramatic change in the way our government operates- and soon- the federal government will be forced to default in the next 20 years. Either default on loans, or default on the promises made in the Social Security, but one way or the other something will have to give.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
The biggest laugh I've had in a long time,
when I could really use it- from College Humor, An Honest Facebook Political Argument
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
What you don't understand about the Tea Partiers Part 3
Why now? People have been unhappy with the political system for years; there have been times when the President's popularity polls and Congress' combined were under 50%- what's bringing people to the streets at this moment? A number of elements- some simmering under the radar for years, some new, and some that we had thought were comfortably in the future that we are now realizing are too close for comfort- are creating a "perfect storm" of public outcry... and it may be that the Tea Party phenomenon is not the culmination, but merely the first warning.
Simmering problems. As I reported in my post, Jobless recovery- or jobless economy?, there hasn't been a new private sector job created in eleven years. New types of jobs have been created, but in terms of more people working today than yesterday, not a single new job. This lack of new jobs was masked by the big corporate profits being made, and the fact that most of the unemployed had in the past been those without special skills or education- it's not headline network news when there's high unemployment among the high school dropout set. But then highly skilled workers, with college degrees and/or decades on the job started getting laid off.
What caused the collapse of the mortgage industry? Yes, yes, there were all kinds of crazy mortgage schemes going on; some actually illegal, some so new there were not yet regulations in place that covered them. But all the finger pointing at Freddie This and Fannie That and Soandso's Bank misses the point that the mortgages were being defaulted because people were losing their jobs and couldn't pay the mortgage! Think about the timeline of the first troubles being reported, the bankruptcies, the Bush bank bailouts (and the protests over them), the auto company bailouts, (and their protests), along with the formation of the Tea Party... now look at this interactive unemployment map. It's no wonder middle class people are protesting. The dearth of decent jobs has been preventing upward mobility from the lower class to the middle class for years; now the previously existing middle class is dwindling, as is discussed in America's Sinking Middle Class: "Middle-class wealth was personal savings, homeownership, and a pension, stemming in most cases from a decent job. Savings are now debt, homes are mortgaged and losing value, and the private-sector pension has devolved into a 401(k) with shrunken assets. Government pensions face shrunken assets, too."
Some new I know it's considered racist to call corporate bailouts and government interference in private industry socialism (which I guess proves that President Nixon was black, as conservatives called him a socialist for his Lockheed bailout and his wage and price controls. But I digress), but whatever it is, people resent it. The reason people resent it is that as most people work for small businesses, they never receive the benefits, but they can see the costs every April 15th. I know I resented it when the USPS started offering quick-printing services in direct competition with my shop; I know I received no bailout when my company failed, nor when the company I then went to work for failed, nor when the company that bought that one laid me and half the rest of its workforce failed. Play that interactive unemployment map again, and imagine how few of them are getting any benefit from the Bush/Obama bailouts.
Too close for comfort This is a fear of future problems; to understand it, we must look at the recent past as prologue. The symptom is debt. Look at these figures of both government debt, and privately held debt, in billions:
_National debt__%GDP_Public debt_%_Total
1970 __380.9___37.6_____283.2__28.0__65.6
1980 __909.0___33.4_____711.9__26.1__59.5
1990 _3,206.3___55.9___2,411.6_ 42.0__97.9
2000 _5,628.7___58.0___3,409.8 _35.1__93.1
2008 _9,985.8___70.2___5,802.0 _40.8_111.0
2009 12,311.4___86.1___7,811.1__54.6_140.7
2010 14,456.3___98.1___9,881.9__67.1_165.2
2011 15,673.9__101.0__10,873.1__70.1_171.1
2012 16,565.7__100.6__11,468.4__69.6_170.2
2013 17,440.2___99.7__12,027.1__68.7_168.4
2014 18,350.0___99.8__12,594.8__68.5_168.3
We haven't seen debt ratios like that since WW II. Why does it matter? Because when a country tries to borrow money, the lenders usually look at both the national debt and the public debt to determine interest rates- and that's already affecting us. As reported in Bloomberg," "The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.
Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market...While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving “substantially” closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody’s said last week."
Ok, so it would be embarrassing if we lost our AAA rating, is it really that critical? Yes- because something is looming on the horizon that will force us to borrow huge amounts, no matter what the interest rate is: baby boomers retiring and demanding their Social Security. We've long known this day was coming; the predictions were that we would start paying out more SSI than we were taking in by 2016, exhaust the surplus by 2037, and then have to borrow the difference for a decade or so before demographics balanced the scales again. But those predictions were made before this major recession, and before major new entitlements like Bush's senior drug program and Obama's new healthcare law- not to mention little things like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the bailouts, etc. That old schedule is no longer operative; according to The Boston Globe, we've already hit the first of those predictions: "WASHINGTON — Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in the current fiscal year, six years earlier than expected, the Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday." How will that affect the second prediction? I've seen projections that we will have to start borrowing to cover SSI not just six years earlier, but possibly ten or more years earlier, possibly as soon as 2025. And those are the middle projections, not the worst case ones.
In order to maintain our AAA rating during the borrowing we must do to cover the SSI baby boom, we must pay down a large portion of that total debt, both public and private, in the next 15 years. For that to happen, we have to have an economic boom in the next couple of years that will be big enough that tax receipts will balance the budget, plus extra to make big payments on the existing debt... in other words, double digit growth for pretty much the entire 15 years. And not have any emergencies in the meantime- no Katrinas, no 911's, no wars, no carbon taxes, nothing to upset the applecart for 15 years.
Tea Party members don't think that's going to happen with politics as usual. Perhaps you think it is going to happen, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the Tea Partier's fears as irrational or race based, and you'll win neither friends nor elections by sneering at them.
Simmering problems. As I reported in my post, Jobless recovery- or jobless economy?, there hasn't been a new private sector job created in eleven years. New types of jobs have been created, but in terms of more people working today than yesterday, not a single new job. This lack of new jobs was masked by the big corporate profits being made, and the fact that most of the unemployed had in the past been those without special skills or education- it's not headline network news when there's high unemployment among the high school dropout set. But then highly skilled workers, with college degrees and/or decades on the job started getting laid off.
What caused the collapse of the mortgage industry? Yes, yes, there were all kinds of crazy mortgage schemes going on; some actually illegal, some so new there were not yet regulations in place that covered them. But all the finger pointing at Freddie This and Fannie That and Soandso's Bank misses the point that the mortgages were being defaulted because people were losing their jobs and couldn't pay the mortgage! Think about the timeline of the first troubles being reported, the bankruptcies, the Bush bank bailouts (and the protests over them), the auto company bailouts, (and their protests), along with the formation of the Tea Party... now look at this interactive unemployment map. It's no wonder middle class people are protesting. The dearth of decent jobs has been preventing upward mobility from the lower class to the middle class for years; now the previously existing middle class is dwindling, as is discussed in America's Sinking Middle Class: "Middle-class wealth was personal savings, homeownership, and a pension, stemming in most cases from a decent job. Savings are now debt, homes are mortgaged and losing value, and the private-sector pension has devolved into a 401(k) with shrunken assets. Government pensions face shrunken assets, too."
Some new I know it's considered racist to call corporate bailouts and government interference in private industry socialism (which I guess proves that President Nixon was black, as conservatives called him a socialist for his Lockheed bailout and his wage and price controls. But I digress), but whatever it is, people resent it. The reason people resent it is that as most people work for small businesses, they never receive the benefits, but they can see the costs every April 15th. I know I resented it when the USPS started offering quick-printing services in direct competition with my shop; I know I received no bailout when my company failed, nor when the company I then went to work for failed, nor when the company that bought that one laid me and half the rest of its workforce failed. Play that interactive unemployment map again, and imagine how few of them are getting any benefit from the Bush/Obama bailouts.
Too close for comfort This is a fear of future problems; to understand it, we must look at the recent past as prologue. The symptom is debt. Look at these figures of both government debt, and privately held debt, in billions:
_National debt__%GDP_Public debt_%_Total
1970 __380.9___37.6_____283.2__28.0__65.6
1980 __909.0___33.4_____711.9__26.1__59.5
1990 _3,206.3___55.9___2,411.6_ 42.0__97.9
2000 _5,628.7___58.0___3,409.8 _35.1__93.1
2008 _9,985.8___70.2___5,802.0 _40.8_111.0
2009 12,311.4___86.1___7,811.1__54.6_140.7
2010 14,456.3___98.1___9,881.9__67.1_165.2
2011 15,673.9__101.0__10,873.1__70.1_171.1
2012 16,565.7__100.6__11,468.4__69.6_170.2
2013 17,440.2___99.7__12,027.1__68.7_168.4
2014 18,350.0___99.8__12,594.8__68.5_168.3
We haven't seen debt ratios like that since WW II. Why does it matter? Because when a country tries to borrow money, the lenders usually look at both the national debt and the public debt to determine interest rates- and that's already affecting us. As reported in Bloomberg," "The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.
Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market...While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving “substantially” closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody’s said last week."
Ok, so it would be embarrassing if we lost our AAA rating, is it really that critical? Yes- because something is looming on the horizon that will force us to borrow huge amounts, no matter what the interest rate is: baby boomers retiring and demanding their Social Security. We've long known this day was coming; the predictions were that we would start paying out more SSI than we were taking in by 2016, exhaust the surplus by 2037, and then have to borrow the difference for a decade or so before demographics balanced the scales again. But those predictions were made before this major recession, and before major new entitlements like Bush's senior drug program and Obama's new healthcare law- not to mention little things like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the bailouts, etc. That old schedule is no longer operative; according to The Boston Globe, we've already hit the first of those predictions: "WASHINGTON — Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in the current fiscal year, six years earlier than expected, the Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday." How will that affect the second prediction? I've seen projections that we will have to start borrowing to cover SSI not just six years earlier, but possibly ten or more years earlier, possibly as soon as 2025. And those are the middle projections, not the worst case ones.
In order to maintain our AAA rating during the borrowing we must do to cover the SSI baby boom, we must pay down a large portion of that total debt, both public and private, in the next 15 years. For that to happen, we have to have an economic boom in the next couple of years that will be big enough that tax receipts will balance the budget, plus extra to make big payments on the existing debt... in other words, double digit growth for pretty much the entire 15 years. And not have any emergencies in the meantime- no Katrinas, no 911's, no wars, no carbon taxes, nothing to upset the applecart for 15 years.
Tea Party members don't think that's going to happen with politics as usual. Perhaps you think it is going to happen, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the Tea Partier's fears as irrational or race based, and you'll win neither friends nor elections by sneering at them.
Monday, April 05, 2010
This was to have been part 3, "Why now?", but I'm interrupting the sequence to draw attention to a number of recent articles germane to previously discussed points.
As to whether Tea Party members are all racist and/or Republican, there is Tea Party Anger Reflects Mainstream Concerns by Juan Williams. Relatively few people have called Juan a right wing racist. CNN, also rarely described as right wing, has Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party .
Many bloggers and pundits say it's the level of vitriol that is new and proves racism. For example, when Rush Limbaugh recently called the Obama administration a "regime", Chris Matthews was appalled: ""I've never seen language like this in the American press," he said, "referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it."
Matthews didn't stop there. "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?" he said to NBC's Chuck Todd. "I don't even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a 'regime.'"
Well, Byron York at The Washington Examiner looked it up. "... a search of the Nexis database for "Bush regime" yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present... It was used 16 times in the New York Times... "Bush regime" was used 24 times in the Washington Post,... " In fact, it was even used on Chris' own network, MSNBC, by, "Finally -- you knew this was coming -- on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror. "Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton," Matthews said. "Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?"
Another article in a similar vein is Against ObamaCare? You're A Racist Hater by Larry Elder. An even more interesting submission is this You Tube video of anti-Bush protestors. It's worth listening through to the end for the protestor who says, "Us Democrats are gonna get up in arms, we'll have to come out and, you know, do what we have to do in the spirit of revolution... we'll have to come out and kill somebody, I guess."
UPDATE: From a poll taken by the Winston Group, released as Behind the Headlines: What’s driving the Tea Party Movement?
"In three national surveys, done for New Models from December 2009 through February 2010, 57% of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans, another 28% said they were Independents, and 13% were Democrats. Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal."
As to whether Tea Party members are all racist and/or Republican, there is Tea Party Anger Reflects Mainstream Concerns by Juan Williams. Relatively few people have called Juan a right wing racist. CNN, also rarely described as right wing, has Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party .
Many bloggers and pundits say it's the level of vitriol that is new and proves racism. For example, when Rush Limbaugh recently called the Obama administration a "regime", Chris Matthews was appalled: ""I've never seen language like this in the American press," he said, "referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it."
Matthews didn't stop there. "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?" he said to NBC's Chuck Todd. "I don't even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a 'regime.'"
Well, Byron York at The Washington Examiner looked it up. "... a search of the Nexis database for "Bush regime" yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present... It was used 16 times in the New York Times... "Bush regime" was used 24 times in the Washington Post,... " In fact, it was even used on Chris' own network, MSNBC, by, "Finally -- you knew this was coming -- on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror. "Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton," Matthews said. "Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?"
Another article in a similar vein is Against ObamaCare? You're A Racist Hater by Larry Elder. An even more interesting submission is this You Tube video of anti-Bush protestors. It's worth listening through to the end for the protestor who says, "Us Democrats are gonna get up in arms, we'll have to come out and, you know, do what we have to do in the spirit of revolution... we'll have to come out and kill somebody, I guess."
UPDATE: From a poll taken by the Winston Group, released as Behind the Headlines: What’s driving the Tea Party Movement?
"In three national surveys, done for New Models from December 2009 through February 2010, 57% of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans, another 28% said they were Independents, and 13% were Democrats. Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal."
Friday, April 02, 2010
What you don't understand about the Tea Partiers Part 2
What they are afraid of? Many things, but two concerns dwarf all others: big government and big deficits. Let's start with big government.
There are two ways one might define the size of government; the first is how much it costs. As a percentage of gross national product, the federal government has grown from 8.03% to 44.48% in the last hundred years. State governments' growth has kept pace; the combined burden is often expressed as "tax freedom day", or how long you have to work just to cover your taxes. In 1910, taxes took all your income earned through January 19th; this year it's April 9th. It should be noted that these numbers do not include deficits or fees, such as license plates, which can exceed $500.
Another way to measure the size of government is by power. The original form of the federal government was too weak to govern; it didn't even have the power to outlaw slavery- that required a Constitutional amendment. But today- proving the axiom that there is no happy medium in politics- the federal government can control such picayune minutia as whether you can turn right at a red light. But the provision in the new healthcare law that one must buy insurance is a whole new level of overreaching. As I noted before, the commerce clause in the Constitution has already been stretched to say that the federal government has the right to overturn state laws on the basis of an interstate market that has no legal existence. What this new law claims is that the federal government has a right to overturn state laws on the basis of an interstate market that does not exist at all, and cannot exist in the future unless that same federal government changes the law to make it so.
Conservatives fear that if this stands, it erases the 10th amendment altogether; one can always fantasize some hypothetical trade that would then need federal regulation- there would be no practical limits on federal power whatsoever. We will in fact have changed our very form of government from a union of sovereign states to a single state with some limited local autonomy without the democratic procedure of amending the Constitution. Now perhaps you think we should change the Constitution to make us "One Nation" in law as well as poetry; a good case for that can be made- through the democratic process. But the Tea Party type of conservative feels that one cannot "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" by violating it. And they fear the mindset of a person or a party that thinks you can.
By the way, if you think that fear shows the right wingnut nature of the tea Partiers, then you are deeming 56% of the country to be wingnuts, according to this CNN poll. "Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." You will have also confirmed the diversity of the Tea Party; even 37% of Democrats agree with them in this.
Big Deficits
Ronald Reagan held the deficit record for 25 years at 6% of GDP in 1983; Bush was a piker by comparison- though his deficits looked big in dollars, they were scarcely 2% of GDP. But now, early in his first term, President Obama has succeeded in his ambition to be a transformative figure like Reagan was; 2009's deficit was 9.9% of GDP, more than half again bigger than Reagan's- in fact, the 2009 budget deficit is larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
What's this doing to the national debt? According to this Washington Times story, "The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008." This puts our economic condition somewhere between Bulgaria and Greece.
More about deficits in part three, "Why now?"
There are two ways one might define the size of government; the first is how much it costs. As a percentage of gross national product, the federal government has grown from 8.03% to 44.48% in the last hundred years. State governments' growth has kept pace; the combined burden is often expressed as "tax freedom day", or how long you have to work just to cover your taxes. In 1910, taxes took all your income earned through January 19th; this year it's April 9th. It should be noted that these numbers do not include deficits or fees, such as license plates, which can exceed $500.
Another way to measure the size of government is by power. The original form of the federal government was too weak to govern; it didn't even have the power to outlaw slavery- that required a Constitutional amendment. But today- proving the axiom that there is no happy medium in politics- the federal government can control such picayune minutia as whether you can turn right at a red light. But the provision in the new healthcare law that one must buy insurance is a whole new level of overreaching. As I noted before, the commerce clause in the Constitution has already been stretched to say that the federal government has the right to overturn state laws on the basis of an interstate market that has no legal existence. What this new law claims is that the federal government has a right to overturn state laws on the basis of an interstate market that does not exist at all, and cannot exist in the future unless that same federal government changes the law to make it so.
Conservatives fear that if this stands, it erases the 10th amendment altogether; one can always fantasize some hypothetical trade that would then need federal regulation- there would be no practical limits on federal power whatsoever. We will in fact have changed our very form of government from a union of sovereign states to a single state with some limited local autonomy without the democratic procedure of amending the Constitution. Now perhaps you think we should change the Constitution to make us "One Nation" in law as well as poetry; a good case for that can be made- through the democratic process. But the Tea Party type of conservative feels that one cannot "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" by violating it. And they fear the mindset of a person or a party that thinks you can.
By the way, if you think that fear shows the right wingnut nature of the tea Partiers, then you are deeming 56% of the country to be wingnuts, according to this CNN poll. "Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." You will have also confirmed the diversity of the Tea Party; even 37% of Democrats agree with them in this.
Big Deficits
Ronald Reagan held the deficit record for 25 years at 6% of GDP in 1983; Bush was a piker by comparison- though his deficits looked big in dollars, they were scarcely 2% of GDP. But now, early in his first term, President Obama has succeeded in his ambition to be a transformative figure like Reagan was; 2009's deficit was 9.9% of GDP, more than half again bigger than Reagan's- in fact, the 2009 budget deficit is larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
What's this doing to the national debt? According to this Washington Times story, "The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008." This puts our economic condition somewhere between Bulgaria and Greece.
More about deficits in part three, "Why now?"
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
What you don't understand about the Tea Partiers
Part 1
The way many fellow UU bloggers talk about the Tea Party phenomenon makes it clear to me that they really don't understand what is motivating them; their emotions, their fears, and most especially why now? While I am not a Tea Party organizer, I have been an old line (meaning not religious right) conservative all my adult life; perhaps I can give you a few insights.
The first thing to understand is that this is not a Republican party movement. Even many Republicans- the type who believe that conservatives must be Republican by default- misunderestimate that this is a truly new phenomenon in American politics. The Tea Parties were organized because people felt equally betrayed by both political parties; Bush was actually a bigger disappointment to conservatives than liberals because they had expected better. My proof? Here in Indiana, the Libertarian party is now the second largest party in many counties- and the party displaced is as often the Republican as the Democrat. My prediction (and remember that I predicted the passage of healthcare reform back in August of last year) is that the next election will see a record number of third party candidates elected nationwide.
The next thing to understand is what they mean when they say that government is the problem, or call new programs socialism, or say of healthcare reform, "This wasn't a victory for the people, it was a victory over the people". Tea partiers are not anarchists, like the ones who riot at G-8 summits; those are left wingnuts. They are not protesting government as keeper of the peace, or provider of services; they are protesting government as just another special interest group. They believe that the government is no longer a "civil service", but a ruling class, ever getting richer while the poor get poorer.
How can they think such a thing? Well, we can start with the fact that the average pay for federal employees is $72,800, while the national average wage is $42,270- and next year the federal average will increase to $75,419... how many of us are going to get a raise like that this year? Of course, even the current average federal wage would look mighty nice here in Indiana, where the average wage is $37,770; especially considering that wages have been dropping here, as they have most places around the country.
Worse than that gap is the accelerated pace at which that gap is increasing. From boston.com: "Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries - not including overtime and bonuses - “jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months.’’ The surge has been especially pronounced among the highest-paid employees. At the Defense Department, for example, the number of civilian workers making $150,000 or more quintupled from 1,868 to 10,100. At the recession’s start, the Transportation Department was paying only one person a salary of $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees were drawing paychecks that size." And not only are the wages increasing, the number of federal employees receiving those wages is increasing, according to CBS News; "At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge. ... Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)" Has your company been hiring at that rate? Most tea Partiers think most of that hiring is just plum jobs for political supporters- and one does have to wonder why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs 25% more employees when we haven't built a new reactor in 30 years.
Liberals see the class struggle as between the evil corporate profiteers and the poor working class; Tea Partiers see it as between the citizen and the bloated ruling class. It comes as no surprise to them that the richest counties in the country are not in New York, where those evil corporations are headquartered, nor in Hollywood where movie stars and glitterati live- 6 of the 10 richest counties in U.S. are in DC area.
Next: What Tea Partiers are afraid of.
The way many fellow UU bloggers talk about the Tea Party phenomenon makes it clear to me that they really don't understand what is motivating them; their emotions, their fears, and most especially why now? While I am not a Tea Party organizer, I have been an old line (meaning not religious right) conservative all my adult life; perhaps I can give you a few insights.
The first thing to understand is that this is not a Republican party movement. Even many Republicans- the type who believe that conservatives must be Republican by default- misunderestimate that this is a truly new phenomenon in American politics. The Tea Parties were organized because people felt equally betrayed by both political parties; Bush was actually a bigger disappointment to conservatives than liberals because they had expected better. My proof? Here in Indiana, the Libertarian party is now the second largest party in many counties- and the party displaced is as often the Republican as the Democrat. My prediction (and remember that I predicted the passage of healthcare reform back in August of last year) is that the next election will see a record number of third party candidates elected nationwide.
The next thing to understand is what they mean when they say that government is the problem, or call new programs socialism, or say of healthcare reform, "This wasn't a victory for the people, it was a victory over the people". Tea partiers are not anarchists, like the ones who riot at G-8 summits; those are left wingnuts. They are not protesting government as keeper of the peace, or provider of services; they are protesting government as just another special interest group. They believe that the government is no longer a "civil service", but a ruling class, ever getting richer while the poor get poorer.
How can they think such a thing? Well, we can start with the fact that the average pay for federal employees is $72,800, while the national average wage is $42,270- and next year the federal average will increase to $75,419... how many of us are going to get a raise like that this year? Of course, even the current average federal wage would look mighty nice here in Indiana, where the average wage is $37,770; especially considering that wages have been dropping here, as they have most places around the country.
Worse than that gap is the accelerated pace at which that gap is increasing. From boston.com: "Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries - not including overtime and bonuses - “jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months.’’ The surge has been especially pronounced among the highest-paid employees. At the Defense Department, for example, the number of civilian workers making $150,000 or more quintupled from 1,868 to 10,100. At the recession’s start, the Transportation Department was paying only one person a salary of $170,000. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees were drawing paychecks that size." And not only are the wages increasing, the number of federal employees receiving those wages is increasing, according to CBS News; "At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge. ... Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)" Has your company been hiring at that rate? Most tea Partiers think most of that hiring is just plum jobs for political supporters- and one does have to wonder why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs 25% more employees when we haven't built a new reactor in 30 years.
Liberals see the class struggle as between the evil corporate profiteers and the poor working class; Tea Partiers see it as between the citizen and the bloated ruling class. It comes as no surprise to them that the richest counties in the country are not in New York, where those evil corporations are headquartered, nor in Hollywood where movie stars and glitterati live- 6 of the 10 richest counties in U.S. are in DC area.
Next: What Tea Partiers are afraid of.
Friday, March 26, 2010
We just saw "Alice In Wonderland"
in 3-D, and drew two conclusions:
1. It was a very, very good movie.
2. I was very, very glad that Pirates Of The Carribean III was not in 3-D
1. It was a very, very good movie.
2. I was very, very glad that Pirates Of The Carribean III was not in 3-D
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Obamacare opponents, don't pin your hopes on lawsuits
Lawsuits have already been filed by several state's attorneys general asking that the new healthcare reform law be found unconstitutional on two grounds, both based on the 10th amendment, which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The first complaint is that the federal government has no authority to regulate strictly intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce, and health insurance is intrastate only; one can only buy health insurance from a company licensed in the state in which you live- there is no interstate commerce in health insurance. The second complaint is that the Constitution grants the federal government virtually no powers over the individual citizen, leaving such things to the states; therefore, the federal government has no authority to require that an individual citizen buy an insurance policy from anybody.
These might seem reasonable arguments to the layman- especially that second one. That the Constitution grants few powers over the citizen is undeniable; there's not even a federal law against murder. (Unless the murder occurs on federal soil or the victim is a government employee, or it is an act of high-seas piracy, all of which are reasonable areas of government interest) The federal government wasn't even allowed to tax a citizen for over a hundred years; it required a constitutional amendment to give it that power. The language of the 10th amendment seems quite clear on this.
But that was then; this is now. Today, we live in a post modern, Alice In Wonderland world where words mean what we say they mean, and dictionaries be damned. "Interstate Commerce" no longer means what a dictionary might say that it means; this was established in WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). In that case, a farmer had been charged with growing more wheat than the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 allowed. The farmer claimed that the wheat had not been sold, it had been used to feed his own family; no commerce was involved. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt with commerce, and none had occurred, it wasn't any of the government's business what his family ate. To counter this seemingly reasonable argument, the court invented a new legal doctrine called "Total Incidence", which in layman's terms means "What if everybody did that?" If everybody grew their own wheat to eat, that would depress the price of wheat, which would have an affect on the whole wheat market; therefore the bread on his table, despite having been neither sold nor bought, was involved in interstate commerce.
The irrationality of this argument means nothing to the law. Of course "everybody" isn't going to grow their own; growing wheat is an expensive, difficult, time consuming process that few would undertake- that's why wheat farmers exist in the first place. Hells bells, I once killed an air plant. But I digress.
This bogus expansion of the commerce clause was taken a step further with GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al., 2005. In this case, the federal government overruled California's medical marijuana laws, which allowed citizens of California to grow marijuana for their own consumption. California argued that as there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, the commerce clause did not apply, so the 10th amendment rules. But, of course, there was no way such a reasonable argument was going to be allowed to stand.
The court said "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market... Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Did you catch that? "fungible commodity" means something that can be transported, and doesn't have anybody's name on it. Which means that it's physically possible for a California cancer patient to carry his joint across state lines, and once there, sell it. So despite the fact that the smuggling and the resultant sale are both already illegal, he is, by the Wickard precedent, involved in interstate commerce, and the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the price and market conditions even of a market that has no legal existence. And inherent in the logic is the government's right to assume that capability implies intent; a new precedent in its own right, in my opinion.
To any rational person, this argument too is bogus. It is tantamount to saying that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate your sex life because since you can carry your genitals across state lines, you might then indulge in a little prostitution, which would then be interstate commerce. But again I digress.
Those who have filed the lawsuits against the new healthcare law are arguing that neither Wickard nor Gonzales apply, as health insurance is not a fungible commodity- you can't carry a blank policy across state lines, sell it, and the buyer then be able to use it. The counterargument is that since we are a mobile society, if your state doesn't offer a policy you like you can move. By "Total Incidence", this would affect the insurance policies in all the other states, and so Wickard applies.
I find this logic very, very dangerous. If you can stretch the commerce clause that far, than everything is a federal issue; the 10th amendment is dead. The raison d'etre for our (formerly) weak federal system, and the 10th amendment, was so that we could vote with our feet. The Founding Fathers knew that national mistakes are, by their very nature, huge and difficult to reverse. (Does anyone remember Prohibition?) Their intent was that the individual states could experiment with policies, and the rest of the country could wait and watch to see if it was a good idea; they called this concept the Laboratories of Democracy. If California passes a lot of foolish policies, Indiana does not suffer for them; if Idaho prospers, Indiana can learn from it. That way, the whole nation would not fall from one bad decision.
So which argument will the Supreme Court buy? I've noticed that in lawsuits against the government, there is a strong element of what I call the "Lola" factor. (Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets...) Look at Eminent Domain. In the past, the "compelling public interest" for Eminent Domain was things like roads, (and postal roads are specifically mentioned in the Constitution), bridges, military installations. Today, your land can be taken away from you and given to Wal-Mart if they are capable of paying more in property tax than you are- snatching up great honking wads of cash are now a "compelling public interest", sufficient to override your rights as a citizen. Same goes for forfeiture laws; we've had cases of cars used in a crime confiscated by the state even when the perpetrator did not own the car, and did not have permission to drive it- the GHWOC doctrine applied.
I have no great faith in the Supreme Court's commitment to individual rights or the text of the Constitution. One former Justice actually admitted that in some decisions, they had started from what they wanted the decision to be, then worked backwards to try and find a legal justification for it. Some call that liberal; some call it a violation of their oaths. Will the court find any emanations of the penumbra of the 10th amendment in the healthcare case? It could happen, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
These might seem reasonable arguments to the layman- especially that second one. That the Constitution grants few powers over the citizen is undeniable; there's not even a federal law against murder. (Unless the murder occurs on federal soil or the victim is a government employee, or it is an act of high-seas piracy, all of which are reasonable areas of government interest) The federal government wasn't even allowed to tax a citizen for over a hundred years; it required a constitutional amendment to give it that power. The language of the 10th amendment seems quite clear on this.
But that was then; this is now. Today, we live in a post modern, Alice In Wonderland world where words mean what we say they mean, and dictionaries be damned. "Interstate Commerce" no longer means what a dictionary might say that it means; this was established in WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). In that case, a farmer had been charged with growing more wheat than the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 allowed. The farmer claimed that the wheat had not been sold, it had been used to feed his own family; no commerce was involved. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act dealt with commerce, and none had occurred, it wasn't any of the government's business what his family ate. To counter this seemingly reasonable argument, the court invented a new legal doctrine called "Total Incidence", which in layman's terms means "What if everybody did that?" If everybody grew their own wheat to eat, that would depress the price of wheat, which would have an affect on the whole wheat market; therefore the bread on his table, despite having been neither sold nor bought, was involved in interstate commerce.
The irrationality of this argument means nothing to the law. Of course "everybody" isn't going to grow their own; growing wheat is an expensive, difficult, time consuming process that few would undertake- that's why wheat farmers exist in the first place. Hells bells, I once killed an air plant. But I digress.
This bogus expansion of the commerce clause was taken a step further with GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al., 2005. In this case, the federal government overruled California's medical marijuana laws, which allowed citizens of California to grow marijuana for their own consumption. California argued that as there is no interstate commerce in marijuana, the commerce clause did not apply, so the 10th amendment rules. But, of course, there was no way such a reasonable argument was going to be allowed to stand.
The court said "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market... Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions." Did you catch that? "fungible commodity" means something that can be transported, and doesn't have anybody's name on it. Which means that it's physically possible for a California cancer patient to carry his joint across state lines, and once there, sell it. So despite the fact that the smuggling and the resultant sale are both already illegal, he is, by the Wickard precedent, involved in interstate commerce, and the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the price and market conditions even of a market that has no legal existence. And inherent in the logic is the government's right to assume that capability implies intent; a new precedent in its own right, in my opinion.
To any rational person, this argument too is bogus. It is tantamount to saying that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate your sex life because since you can carry your genitals across state lines, you might then indulge in a little prostitution, which would then be interstate commerce. But again I digress.
Those who have filed the lawsuits against the new healthcare law are arguing that neither Wickard nor Gonzales apply, as health insurance is not a fungible commodity- you can't carry a blank policy across state lines, sell it, and the buyer then be able to use it. The counterargument is that since we are a mobile society, if your state doesn't offer a policy you like you can move. By "Total Incidence", this would affect the insurance policies in all the other states, and so Wickard applies.
I find this logic very, very dangerous. If you can stretch the commerce clause that far, than everything is a federal issue; the 10th amendment is dead. The raison d'etre for our (formerly) weak federal system, and the 10th amendment, was so that we could vote with our feet. The Founding Fathers knew that national mistakes are, by their very nature, huge and difficult to reverse. (Does anyone remember Prohibition?) Their intent was that the individual states could experiment with policies, and the rest of the country could wait and watch to see if it was a good idea; they called this concept the Laboratories of Democracy. If California passes a lot of foolish policies, Indiana does not suffer for them; if Idaho prospers, Indiana can learn from it. That way, the whole nation would not fall from one bad decision.
So which argument will the Supreme Court buy? I've noticed that in lawsuits against the government, there is a strong element of what I call the "Lola" factor. (Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets...) Look at Eminent Domain. In the past, the "compelling public interest" for Eminent Domain was things like roads, (and postal roads are specifically mentioned in the Constitution), bridges, military installations. Today, your land can be taken away from you and given to Wal-Mart if they are capable of paying more in property tax than you are- snatching up great honking wads of cash are now a "compelling public interest", sufficient to override your rights as a citizen. Same goes for forfeiture laws; we've had cases of cars used in a crime confiscated by the state even when the perpetrator did not own the car, and did not have permission to drive it- the GHWOC doctrine applied.
I have no great faith in the Supreme Court's commitment to individual rights or the text of the Constitution. One former Justice actually admitted that in some decisions, they had started from what they wanted the decision to be, then worked backwards to try and find a legal justification for it. Some call that liberal; some call it a violation of their oaths. Will the court find any emanations of the penumbra of the 10th amendment in the healthcare case? It could happen, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I finally saw "Avatar"
And I cannot remember a time I was so disappointed. If you haven't seen it yet, or if you have seen it and liked it, you may want to skip the rest of this post.
There is a famous rejection letter that goes, "Your novel is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good." I have never seen a work in any medium that deserved that critique more than Avatar. Let's start with the parts that are good, but not original, more or less in the order I recognized them.
Call Me Joe "Call Me Joe (1957) is a science fiction story by Poul Anderson about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remotely controlled artificial life-forms. It focuses on the feelings of the disabled man who operates the artificial body... Anglesey uses a wheelchair and is bad-tempered... He is allowed to stay on the station only because of his ability to establish a telepathic connection with and thereby control Joe, a creature designed to survive the hostile conditions on the Jovian surface." Ok, I'll come clean; I remembered the 70's comic book adaptation rather than the '57 original, but that's probably why it came to mind so quickly- the visuals of the wheelchair.
Double Star "Double Star is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in Astounding Science Fiction (February, March, April 1956) and published in hardcover the same year. At the 1957 Worldcon it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel of the previous year." In Double Star, the Martians’ standard greeting is “I see you”, and it is clear that by “see”, they mean more than vision, an understanding.
Dune “Dune is a science fiction novel written by Frank Herbert, published in 1965. It won the Hugo Award in 1966, and also the inaugural Nebula Award for Best Novel. Dune is frequently cited as the world's best-selling science fiction novel.” Is it a coincidence that the production company that financed Avatar is named Dune Entertainment? You decide: Dune is about a planet that is the only source in the galaxy for something that sells for millions per gram; it’s being mined by evil offworlders. One offworlder accidently falls in with the locals- and isn’t killed out of hand because they receive a sign. So the daughter of a chief is assigned to teach him the ways of the planet and the people. Naturally, they fall in love. Passing a test of manhood- which involves riding a huge wild beast- he is accepted as one of the people, and using a mix of his offworld knowledge and his new understanding of this world, he becomes a war leader. They ride their beasts into combat against the high-tech offworlders and win.
While this is going on in the Na'vi scenes, we learn in the HQ sequences that the entire biosphere is one vast neural net. Two things about that- first, it renders nonsensical all the talk about Pagan spirituality, worshipping nature, etc. I don't care whether you're the Pope denouncing it or a Pagan approving it- either way, it's BS: the Na'vi weren't worshipping a forest Goddess, they were talking to a living biological organism! More powerful than human, yes- after all, it was established that it had tens of thousands more neurons than the human brain- but it was a living organism, not a deity. How many gods do you know who have had their brains mapped by a neurologist?
The other point about this revelation more directly applies to the story itself- that they handled it poorly, revealing the interlinked-mind effect waaay too early in the movie. It destroyed dynamic tension; had we not known until nearer the climax that this wasn't primitive religious woo, but a biological fact, the ending would not have been telegraphed so far in advance. Once you knew for certain that the planet was a living organism, then of course you knew it would fight for survival, that the Ewoks would swarm out of their trees and destroy the Imperial walkers with forest power. Oops, sorry, wrong movie- that the Eywa would use forest power to destroy the Marine powered exoskeletons.
And the really bad thing about a telegraphed ending is that it gives you too much time to think- a bad thing in a movie that is depending upon visuals to prevent you from noticing holes in the story. And let me say right here that yes, the visuals are stunning- I actually had moments of vertigo in some of the flying scenes. (You may remember that I'm not good with heights) In fact, in some ways they were too stunning; I began to wonder if they weren't using visuals to cover poor pacing in the story. That led to wondering other things, like the Hallelujah Floating Mountains... obviously they were just saturated with Unobtainium, and in a highly concentrated form- how many floating mountains do you know? Why didn't they start their mining there? They were undefended and indefensible, and disturbing a pterodactyl habitat wouldn't as bad PR back home as killing humanoids so similar to us that you can make human/Na'vi hybrids.
I began to wonder at the poor state of veteran's benefits they had in the future; not only did they not grow new legs for Jake Sully, they gave him that crappy wheelchair, when even now they're making experimental exoskeletons that allow paraplegics to walk again, and cost about the same as a good wheelchair- surely they'd be standard technology by then, if they're using bigger ones in combat. That got me wondering about the state of their technology- for example, why weren't they using drones, for minimally invasive observation? Radio controlled pterodactyls are easy enough to make, and real birds don't mind flying with drones Which got me to wondering about the Banshees the Na'vi were flying on. BS. Those wings weren't nearly large enough to carry the weight of a rider whose torso is nearly as big as your own. I'll spare you the science (unless you actually want to discuss it), but it just ain't gonna happen.
Was I over thinking it by then? Hell, yes- I was losing my willing suspension of disbelief... but that's their fault. Grand visuals do not a movie make; it is the job of a storyteller to keep you so engrossed that you don't care about plot holes or a big helping of handwavium. There was no memorable dialogue- do you remember any great lines? The only complex, interesting character was Jake himself; the others were pretty much stock cut-outs. There was no B plotline to keep you interested between developments of the main plot. There were no mini-climaxes sprinkled throughout to maintain interest. (other than visual ones- but a touchy flower or an Archimedes screw winged helicopter bug are not a substitute for plot) Look at a previous hit scifi flic with groundbreaking visuals: Star Wars. Look how complex that story was by comparison, how many characters you actually cared about, how well paced the shocks were.
Ginger told me afterwards that the ending seemed to her to be kind of gratuitously happy; it rarely works out that well for messiahs. I agreed, but I had expected it by then. They had not treated the story itself honestly; I hadn't expected them to treat me any better.
There is a famous rejection letter that goes, "Your novel is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good." I have never seen a work in any medium that deserved that critique more than Avatar. Let's start with the parts that are good, but not original, more or less in the order I recognized them.
Call Me Joe "Call Me Joe (1957) is a science fiction story by Poul Anderson about an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remotely controlled artificial life-forms. It focuses on the feelings of the disabled man who operates the artificial body... Anglesey uses a wheelchair and is bad-tempered... He is allowed to stay on the station only because of his ability to establish a telepathic connection with and thereby control Joe, a creature designed to survive the hostile conditions on the Jovian surface." Ok, I'll come clean; I remembered the 70's comic book adaptation rather than the '57 original, but that's probably why it came to mind so quickly- the visuals of the wheelchair.
Double Star "Double Star is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in Astounding Science Fiction (February, March, April 1956) and published in hardcover the same year. At the 1957 Worldcon it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel of the previous year." In Double Star, the Martians’ standard greeting is “I see you”, and it is clear that by “see”, they mean more than vision, an understanding.
Dune “Dune is a science fiction novel written by Frank Herbert, published in 1965. It won the Hugo Award in 1966, and also the inaugural Nebula Award for Best Novel. Dune is frequently cited as the world's best-selling science fiction novel.” Is it a coincidence that the production company that financed Avatar is named Dune Entertainment? You decide: Dune is about a planet that is the only source in the galaxy for something that sells for millions per gram; it’s being mined by evil offworlders. One offworlder accidently falls in with the locals- and isn’t killed out of hand because they receive a sign. So the daughter of a chief is assigned to teach him the ways of the planet and the people. Naturally, they fall in love. Passing a test of manhood- which involves riding a huge wild beast- he is accepted as one of the people, and using a mix of his offworld knowledge and his new understanding of this world, he becomes a war leader. They ride their beasts into combat against the high-tech offworlders and win.
While this is going on in the Na'vi scenes, we learn in the HQ sequences that the entire biosphere is one vast neural net. Two things about that- first, it renders nonsensical all the talk about Pagan spirituality, worshipping nature, etc. I don't care whether you're the Pope denouncing it or a Pagan approving it- either way, it's BS: the Na'vi weren't worshipping a forest Goddess, they were talking to a living biological organism! More powerful than human, yes- after all, it was established that it had tens of thousands more neurons than the human brain- but it was a living organism, not a deity. How many gods do you know who have had their brains mapped by a neurologist?
The other point about this revelation more directly applies to the story itself- that they handled it poorly, revealing the interlinked-mind effect waaay too early in the movie. It destroyed dynamic tension; had we not known until nearer the climax that this wasn't primitive religious woo, but a biological fact, the ending would not have been telegraphed so far in advance. Once you knew for certain that the planet was a living organism, then of course you knew it would fight for survival, that the Ewoks would swarm out of their trees and destroy the Imperial walkers with forest power. Oops, sorry, wrong movie- that the Eywa would use forest power to destroy the Marine powered exoskeletons.
And the really bad thing about a telegraphed ending is that it gives you too much time to think- a bad thing in a movie that is depending upon visuals to prevent you from noticing holes in the story. And let me say right here that yes, the visuals are stunning- I actually had moments of vertigo in some of the flying scenes. (You may remember that I'm not good with heights) In fact, in some ways they were too stunning; I began to wonder if they weren't using visuals to cover poor pacing in the story. That led to wondering other things, like the Hallelujah Floating Mountains... obviously they were just saturated with Unobtainium, and in a highly concentrated form- how many floating mountains do you know? Why didn't they start their mining there? They were undefended and indefensible, and disturbing a pterodactyl habitat wouldn't as bad PR back home as killing humanoids so similar to us that you can make human/Na'vi hybrids.
I began to wonder at the poor state of veteran's benefits they had in the future; not only did they not grow new legs for Jake Sully, they gave him that crappy wheelchair, when even now they're making experimental exoskeletons that allow paraplegics to walk again, and cost about the same as a good wheelchair- surely they'd be standard technology by then, if they're using bigger ones in combat. That got me wondering about the state of their technology- for example, why weren't they using drones, for minimally invasive observation? Radio controlled pterodactyls are easy enough to make, and real birds don't mind flying with drones Which got me to wondering about the Banshees the Na'vi were flying on. BS. Those wings weren't nearly large enough to carry the weight of a rider whose torso is nearly as big as your own. I'll spare you the science (unless you actually want to discuss it), but it just ain't gonna happen.
Was I over thinking it by then? Hell, yes- I was losing my willing suspension of disbelief... but that's their fault. Grand visuals do not a movie make; it is the job of a storyteller to keep you so engrossed that you don't care about plot holes or a big helping of handwavium. There was no memorable dialogue- do you remember any great lines? The only complex, interesting character was Jake himself; the others were pretty much stock cut-outs. There was no B plotline to keep you interested between developments of the main plot. There were no mini-climaxes sprinkled throughout to maintain interest. (other than visual ones- but a touchy flower or an Archimedes screw winged helicopter bug are not a substitute for plot) Look at a previous hit scifi flic with groundbreaking visuals: Star Wars. Look how complex that story was by comparison, how many characters you actually cared about, how well paced the shocks were.
Ginger told me afterwards that the ending seemed to her to be kind of gratuitously happy; it rarely works out that well for messiahs. I agreed, but I had expected it by then. They had not treated the story itself honestly; I hadn't expected them to treat me any better.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
I'm listening to the healthcare debate in the House
on Fox radio as I write. Why? Because I don't have cable TV, so I don't have C-Span; ABC, CBS, and NBC local affiliates have 8 digital channels between them, and none are carrying this historic debate and vote. Nor is the Fox TV affiliate. The local public television affiliate, with three channels, is not carrying it. Nor is public radio around here.
I find it ironic that the only broadcast source in the 10th largest city in the nation that is carrying the whole debate live is the much-reviled right wing AM talk radio, specifically NEWSTALK 1430 WXNT I'll try not to be snarky the next time one of the big public radio/TV fans at church tell me how ignorant talk radio listeners are.
I find it ironic that the only broadcast source in the 10th largest city in the nation that is carrying the whole debate live is the much-reviled right wing AM talk radio, specifically NEWSTALK 1430 WXNT I'll try not to be snarky the next time one of the big public radio/TV fans at church tell me how ignorant talk radio listeners are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)