American Intelligence Test #12 – Fair Tax, Equitable Strain, Just Burden

One of the divisive debates distracting the American people today is the nature of a fair tax system. The Democratic and Republican parties are predictably programmed to respond in their respective views on how to tax their constituent bases more fairly than everyone else. It’s a shame that the public and the media don’t recognize the pointlessness of these hard-coded inflexible stances the parties insist are unfair to the majority of Americans. So let’s look at what the tax system characteristics are and what would be fair. From there we can determine if the tax system is fair or not; and if it benefits the wealthier upper class, the middle income class or the lower income (poor).

So unlike previous American Intelligence tests, you don’t have the same latitude of deciding what the correct answers are. In this test, you are just wrong whether you agree or not with the answer. You will still have the opportunity to fulfill Lincoln’s paraphrased adage:

• Some of us can fool ourselves all of the time, and all of us can fool ourselves some of the time, but all of us can not fool ourselves all of the time.

Question 1:   On a dollar for dollar basis of earned income, who pays more taxes under the underlying structure of the current tax plan? Who pays the higher rate?  Someone who earns:
A.      $20K       B. $40K     C.  $100K   D. $500K    E. $1M   F. $5M   G. No one

Context: One view of fair is that the burden is equal. The question you need to ask is not: Is equal the same; but rather you should ask: Is equal unbiased?

Question 2: Companies and investors cannot grow and expand under high tax conditions.
True  / False

Context: Wealth in the US has not been created during high tax-rate periods. Employment levels decline when taxes are raised.

Question 3:  Tax credits, deductions, tax exemptions, tax deferrals, and other special tax treatments reduce taxes paid by the public.
True  / False

Question 4:   Americans are overtaxed and should have their tax-rates reduced across the board.

True  /  False

Question 5:   Which of the following resulted from over-taxation?

A.      Current recession
B.      Banking financial crisis
C.      Housing-bubble
D.      High unemployment
E.       National debt
F.       All of these
G.     None of these

Question 6:  What is the most damaging aspect of the current tax system?

A.      Redistributes wealth to the wealthy
B.      Redistributes wealth to the poor and middle class
C.      Discourages investment
D.      Over taxes the public
E.       Rewards harmful financial behaviors

Question 7: The wealthy do best when:

A.      Taxes are low
B.      Regulation is limited
C.      Taxes are high
D.      Middle class wealth increases
E.       National debt is zero

You’ve crossed the finish line, now we just need to see if you were in the right race.

1:  G       2:  F        3:  F        4:  F        5: C         6:  E   7: D

Q-1: You need to see what a progressive tax rate actually entails. And progressive does not reflect the political semantic context.

Q-2: The tax-rate does not predict the success or failure of companies or individuals unless it is so extreme that it prevents the public from being able to physically survive. The problem with the US’s present economic situation is not caused by taxes or government spending, but rather by the irresponsibility of Congress to connect the two.

Q-3: These selective tax-relief items do not reduce taxes, they simply redistribute the burden to those who cannot take advantage of them.

Q-4: Before taxes should be reduced, the public needs to be responsible for what they have allowed Congress to do as their direct representatives. If you don’t like what they did, kick them out; but you still are socially, philosophically, morally, culturally, ethically, … obligated to be accountable for what was done in your name. You must fix the problem, before you can have things the way you want them to be.

Q-5: Taxation did not cause any of these, they were all caused by the lack of a requirement of taxation that accounts for the policies that did cause them.

Q-6: It’s a classic case of unintended consequences, and it’s not because the rich are taxed to much.

Q-7: The American economy is robust, dynamic, vibrant, and healthy when the broadest range of the population does economically well. The concentration of wealth is a symptom of rot and corruption; it’s as un-American a condition as its antithesis. In other words, it reflects the status of our political parties.

I:DEA 3 – I Swear I’ve Never Pledged

Independents have another unique position in the electoral process besides being independent. They don’t have to drink the Kool-Aid that the party faithful eagerly consume as if the tenets of party ideology were the essence of life that you can’t survive without. So when candidates come forth to compete for the favor and endorsement of the party’s core, Independents can see if a candidate steps forward eagerly or reluctantly kowtow to the imperative of signing some moronic pledge to one insipid concept or principle or another.

It’s not that taking a position or stance on an issue or policy is a bad thing for a candidate to do. Having a position would actually be expected of candidates. The problem with ‘taking the pledge’ is that it demonstrates a weakness of mind and leadership. Not exactly what you want in your elected officials. The problem with ‘the pledge’ is that it is defined by someone else, not the candidate; it is established to constrain and confine the thoughts and actions of the candidates, to make them conform; and here is the really bad part, it implies that the candidate is less qualified to use their judgment on an issue than the person who crafted the pledge. The reason for the candidate to sign the pledge is obvious. What it says about the candidate’s principles and values is inconsistent with and unworthy of an American leader, particularly one that the nation needs to rely on to address the difficult and thorny problems confronting us. Clearly the Edmund Burke sentiment applies here.

So Independents should be looking for a candidate that does not relinquish their ability to have the options of using their judgment after engaging in thorough and informed discussion of an issue. Someone who hasn’t pre-judged the answer to a problem before they even know the question and the consequences of applying that answer to the specific issue presented by the world and reality. A candidate that is deserving of an Independent’s votes ought to be someone whose judgment you would trust as being rendered from their intelligence and wisdom. Independents are hopefully looking for someone who is smarter than they are. Who would elect someone less intelligent than their self? History doesn’t give us a lot of comfort here.

When offered the option to pledge, what should a smart politician do? Well, they should lead for one; and then they should ask the obvious questions. Now it seems to me that the politicians don’t seem to know the obvious questions; which incidentally is not a good sign. Don’t you think it’s time that Independents started asking the candidates these questions though?

Independents! Rise up and demand an explanation of why a candidate thought signing a pledge was a sign of leadership, and why they didn’t see the fallacy of their pledge? Then follow-up and ask the questions that illustrate the imprudence of their decision.

I:DEA 1 – Independent Thought

One of the first things that Independent voters need to do is to remain independent and uncommitted. Whether during the Democratic or Republican parties’ primaries or the general election, Independents should refrain from providing any overt or implied support for one party’s candidate over the others’.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

The influence and power of Independent voters is at its greatest when no one can depend upon it or even assess which direction it is likely to go. The candidates are forced to contend with the orthogonal forces of retaining their core party constituencies and providing some reasons for the Independents to choose them over their rival(s). This creates more opportunities for the candidates to exhibit some sustentative aspect of their philosophy of government and society, and the true nature of their positions and policies on issues that are important in the public or the private arenas.

Independents should be asking themselves, “Why are they wrong?” This is important because as an Independent you should not be bound to any ideology of the candidate’s party. If you buy into the ideological concept then you are prone to fall into thinking that their positions and policies are the right ones just because they appear consistent with the ideology. The ideology might sound good and have all the trimmings you expect of an American value, but it may also be a directionless compass that provides no guidance what-so-ever to establishing a position, policy or goal in the service of the American society. If you ask why they are wrong and can’t find or think of reasons that support that contention then you are more likely to find a candidate who has not just found some popular ‘button phrases’ to push. But remember even here if you find the answer acceptable, don’t commit. As an Independent you want to find individuals who can make you understand why the country should pursue a particular course, and you want it to be based on information and facts that are relevant to the real world.

When you are polled about your opinion on political issues, candidates and choices you have to not accept the premise of the question. As an Independent you should consistently indicate that you would not be persuaded to vote for or against someone because of a statement make by them or about them. You wouldn’t agree or disagree that a position on one issue is critical to your decision. You should indicate that no candidate or party has adequately presented a clear and well explained position on how they would implement and fulfill their proposed solutions. You can indicate that you like what someone has done on some issue, but that that is not sufficient to determine your choice. So generally you don’t want to provide pollsters with useful information. You do want to take the poll/survey, you just want to make sure your answers are unsupportive of anyone. It’s not in an Independents’ interest for the parties and candidates to find ‘sound bites’ that seem to win over voters. You want candidates to struggle to provide you with a demonstration of their ability to understand and explain how their actions will result in positive outcomes for the nation.

Independents should also tell any friends, neighbors and relatives who tell you why their candidate is the one to vote for and support that you don’t see their favorite candidate as being a sufficiently moderate voice and force for the nation. Independents are the only group who can make moderate candidates stronger candidates. Any party that wants to survive will have to find candidates that can work with like-minded individuals of any political orientation that can find a common ground to accomplish the tasks of government. Independents, I suspect are not generally individuals who think that all-or-nothing solutions are in fact solutions to the problems facing our pluralistic society. If’s if very simple, it’s probably actually very simple; and complex problems are rarely solved by people with simple solutions. Those solutions are simple for a reason.

Independents should discuss and offer opinions about issues; provide assessments of why a proposal, plan or policy of a candidate is worth consideration; and present questions and concerns that the candidates are not addressing. But it should be clear that no candidate has sufficiently satisfied the Independent with regard to these issues or questions.

A last thought here for Independents is a condition for supporting a candidate; even if you won’t tell them that you support them. If you don’t think that candidate is smarter then you, why would you vote for them?

Now to have an impact on the candidates and parties, Independents don’t want to wait until the election and convey their choice through their vote. A month or two before the election, but not sooner, Independents should feel free to indicate their preferences. This will focus the candidates and parties upon the views and requirements of Independents as surely as your execution day focuses your mind.

Who Do You Trust? – A Ranking Business

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Apparently this is the cool, calm and calculated professional assessment by the keenly knowledgeable financial markets experts of the downgrading of the US’s long-term sovereign credit rating by S&P. So we have heard from every possible source the different assortment of explanations and assessments of this action to make sure that there are plenty of directions and targets on which to place the blame. But here’s an interesting question: What nation do all these experts think is safer and more secure then the US? Is it the UK and Germany? So the rest of the world can turn to them to insure the stability of their own financial stability?

I am not disagreeing that the US’s financial condition is riskier than it has been in a long time, but I am not sure I think that there is any other nation that is less risky. So isn’t the downgrading, justly deserved or not, a relative event? Didn’t the economic future of every other country become a little more risky along with the US’s? So, why is the financial market in such a panic? Because the panic is not a rational behavior, it is well a panic. So who do we trust?

The credit rating agencies, we must be able to trust them. They have nothing to gain by being wrong, and have never failed us in the past. That is if you overlook things like the US’s housing mortgage and collateralized debt catastrophe or the tech bubble or any of the other financial melt-downs of smaller note. I am not saying that they miss such events intentionally, just that they are not showing any signs of being actually better than anyone else.

How about the financial market itself? Oops! Right, they didn’t do too well with the housing crisis, the tech bubble, the savings and loan disasters, unforeseen risks with computerized trading, or ya-da-ya-da-ya-da. Not a trustworthy group there either.

The US Government, now here is a group we can put faith in. Hmmm!  Congress? I think not.  The President/Administration? You can’t be serious. Let’s just move on.

America’s Corporate businesses, now here is a group that we can rely upon. We don’t see CEO and other corporate executive letting us down, taking advantage of their positions, draining enormous sums from the companies’ coffers and leaving ruined wrecks in their wake. Well, maybe sometimes or actually a lot of times.

The answer is you don’t trust. You’re not supposed to trust. What you are supposed to do is pay attention, be responsible, be realistic, and demand value for reward. And there is the heart of the problem. If you don’t act this way, and the politicians you elect don’t act this way; what exactly do you think will happen.

What will happen now is that the American people will be taxed at a higher rate, and so will most of the rest of the world. It isn’t the kind of tax that many American’s are so irrational about, it much worse. It the kind of tax that you don’t have someone to blame for, but you probably will anyway. It’s an increase in the cost of everything. With a US debt at $14 trillion and the downgrading to a double-A rating, if that downgrade were to cost only 0.1% more in interest then the US government is looking at only $14 billion more on that total amount; hardly a nickel per person. But that nickel, it is not the impact that will hurt us; and if it cost a whole 1% more it still is not debilitating. Here is where it’s going to hurt: The cost to business will be higher for their loans, the cost to consumers for credit will be higher, the cost for students for tuition will be higher, and on and on. Some businesses will benefit from this in the immediate view, and it may be impossible to prove that they would have been better off if the downgrade didn’t happen. But you will pay. You will be less well off. And you are also heavily invested in the responsibility for this.

Mostly because the folks that are leading our nation are neither prepared to deal with the complexity of such issues nor are they capable of acting in intelligent, rational or serving the public-interest ways. There is a simple principle here: Don’t go to the butcher for medical advice. Don’t go to the plumber for legal advice, and don’t go to the lawyer for a plumbing problem. Don’t hire a banker to herd your cattle, nor an English teacher to fix your car. Sure you may get lucky and find someone who can actually assist you, but the odds are not in your favor. Oh, yeah. Don’t go to the casinos to invest your retirement funds.

You should start looking for someone who is more intelligent to send to Congress. If you’re lucky they might even be more intelligent than you.

Potential Energy and Independent Power

The obvious and evident failure of the Democratic and Republican parties to recognize their responsibility to represent their constituencies, not their special interest campaign backers or their core party ideologies, but the American citizens within their respective political districts has been showcased in the current national debt ceiling debacle on display for the last six-plus months. Now I enjoy watching the ineptitude and stupidity of our political leaders as much as anyone, but I am getting tired of having to increasingly pay more and more for the consequences of their collective incompetence. Consider a recent statement that indicated that ‘no solution that put the burden of new taxes upon those who cannot afford them, will be tolerated’. Unless I missed something, isn’t there a logical inconsistency somewhere in this statement when the proposals for ‘new revenues’ are targeted on high-income (wealthy) individuals? Can you really be wealthy, and not be able to afford a tax increase, that is still less than historic levels? Well, the statement does play well in the media; I suppose it doesn’t matter that it’s demonstrates an idiotic premise. I would have recommended staying with one of the other fallacious statements that doesn’t look so stupid when a simple question is raised.

 And don’t be fooled by either side that throughout the entire ranting exercises (I cannot in good conscience even allude to their debating the issue) of each partisan mob that they understand or even attempted to inform anyone about how and what you will pay under their varied and respective proposals. Whether it’s the extreme right-wing Republicans or extreme left-wing Democratic, these tunnel-visioned party fanatics have deluded themselves and they hope fooled most other Americans that their approaches would address the nations fiscal problems.

The conventional wisdom (what a misused concept for the political wonks who spew their sage detritus about the workings of our elected partisan automaton) is that the Republicans and Democrats will be unable (I think incapable and inadequate are more apropos) to reach a compromise agreement on dealing with raising the debt ceiling and coming to grips with government spending and revenues. So rather than a carpe diem moment, the great and grand political leadership of America are kicking the can down the road in hopes of perpetuating more self-centered, self-serving campaign sound-bites to keep the addle-pated core , well addled and foaming at the mouth.

What recourse for America is there? The answer is that you have to look at the physic of the political reality. The Republican and Democratic parties are only in control because the true power brokers in America are not focused or organized. Elections are determined by the nation’s independent voters. Voters who cannot bring themselves to aligning themselves with either party because those parties are ideologically, intellectually and ethically bankrupt. Independents are the potential power in America. Their choices represent the energy that can power the movement of our governmental and societal systems to productive and responsible solutions.

The challenge for Independents is create an independent communications medium to provide a lens through which their energy can be focused and brought to bear on the issues and choices that need to be made. It is in this context that future topics will be presented on sowing the seeds of political innovation for raising a crop of American leadership that is not stunted and deformed by the inbreeding of the lesser of bad choices, and improper culling of the evolutionary viable members of the herd.

The US Budget: Three Errors Americans Keep Making

America and Americans are desperately seeking solutions to their economic woes. As is typical of our citizenry, they persist in looking for the quick, the easy and the effortless fix. Doesn’t matter whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or any of the lesser marginalized cults. They seize upon the particular orthodoxy, beliefs and tenets of their political theology to answer all issues, questions and problems. It doesn’t matter if their partisan faith is irrelevant, flawed or useless; their personal political beliefs provide them with an internal comfort that all will work out fine because they believe that they are in the right. From this unfounded confidence in their ideology, Americans guide their political judgments and decisions; and thus predictably we get the inevitable consequences from ill-informed, ill-intended and ill-defined legislative and administrative efforts. What is wrong with the political decisions that Americans are making?

Well, we don’t have the space to go into everything that the electorate is doing wrong, but we can at least identify three mistakes that they make over and over and over.

One: Many voters, particularly those aligned with a formal party, are sufficiently moronic to believe the political rhetoric and theater that is played out in the media, meetings and campaigns. Instead of engaging in any assessment and analysis of what the country’s needs and interests are, what the society’s needs and interests are, and what the people’s needs and interests are. They abandoned their responsibility to their countrymen/women agreed to in the country’s contract. Instead they believe the words and speeches of their partisan leadership without asking whether there is any substance to the text. Failure one is not noticing that the same answer, the same sound-bites, the same posturing stances on principles cannot be an informed, intelligent and appropriate solution to any issue brought into the public forum. If you don’t question and demand an explanation that makes sense and informs you then you just aren’t trying.

Two: When a politician is elected, you can choose to trust them or not. This one is really easy. If you trust them, then you must never have met a politician before. You must never have read or heard about what politicians do, or who politicians cozy up to. In short, you cannot trust a politician. So mistake number two is that voters put their preference into a special category of honest, different from the rest.

Three: Politicians can fix our problems. The simplest way to clarify your error on this one is to ask: “What problem have you ever actually seen politicians fix?” They follow, they don’t lead. They are not informed or intelligent enough to solve problems. This is why their legislative and administrative efforts always define how something is to be done or solved. That is not a solution, it is a dictate. It only says: “This is how I want it to be”, and has nothing to do with dealing with the physics of government and society. So mistake three is voters accept the premise that politicians have the ability to solve the country’s problems. They accept this without any evidence that politicians have any understanding of what the underlying conditions of the problem are, nor possess any notion of what actions can influence the situation to produce the results that are desired.

Is it any wonder that politicians have spent the last two plus years failing to do anything to correct the American economy? They talk about cutting budgets or taxing the wealthy. These of course are not solutions to the problem, and more importantly, they just talk about what is to be done. They do nothing. The definition of Congress: They do nothing

A Just Purpose for Government

“Establish Justice”, seems like an obvious purpose for our government; and it is contractually binding. Certainly you would not reject that goal. You wouldn’t agree that you are less entitled or not entitled to the same rights that any other given person in our nation is granted under the law. I suppose there might be some individuals who are, let’s say, less cognitively capable or who have some self-esteem issues which leads them to think that they do not deserve the same rights; but you don’t think of yourself as somehow unworthy of equality within in system. Besides under our law we have definitively determined that you are not allowed ‘under the law’ to abandon, relinquish, or in any way give up or forfeit your basic rights. So like it or not, you are entitled to justice in America; in fact, equal justice. No less and no more justice than anyone else. And here’s the part many of you will have a hard time with, everyone else has the exact same claim and right to the same equal justice. That’s part of the contract we agreed to.

Now not many of you remember signing the contract, but there are some who do because they did. But for the rest, the binding agreement is an inherited obligation handed down from generation to generation; additionally it is a verbal contract commitment that you made when you first claimed for yourself any of the rights granted under the Constitution. Even before that the rest of society granted you those rights as a citizen of the United States when you were born. All in all, there is no way out except complete forfeiture for citizenship and leaving. So the government owes you justice.

The difficulty with the justice purpose of government is that once we all understand that justice is part of the guarantee of our democratic system, being a part of the contract doesn’t convey what justice entails. I completely understand this problem, because it is really hard to define what justice is as it applies to our societal framework.

Given the constitutional covenant which fundamentally addresses the laws that unite us, justice would be principally the realm where we interact with each other under our laws. The government’s purpose with respect to justice is to insure that laws are applied uniformly and equitably. This includes protecting citizens’ rights by providing the governmental infrastructure that administers justice: the courts, law enforcement, and god-protect us government lawyers. It includes the legislature’s duty to make laws that abide by the principle of justice, no matter how bad they are at it. Thankfully we have the checks and balances within our structure that provides the opportunity to limit and correct their errors of judgment, intent and foolishness.

The societal questions that abound around treating citizens fairly is the most difficult aspect of justice. The problem here is that determining what is fair is often not a legal issue and not related to the law. The purpose of justice when it comes to questions of fairness is for the government to be able to justify to the people and all branches of government that what is deemed fair, is deemed far under the law. So a progressive tax rate is often argued as unfair, but the principle of justice is not the basis of determining whether it is fair or not. Justice only requires that it is within the legal jurisdiction of the government and that the tax laws do not violate the obligation to apply the law justly to all.

In a democracy, Justice is a core purpose of government. If the government does not insure and deliver justice then the government will ultimately run afoul of its other constitutional contractual obligations; and the consequences of this failure are emblematic of our very founding.

The Union Purpose of Government

It’s not that we have forgotten the purpose of our government; it’s that we probably never learned it. In the second installment on the purpose of government I thought the starting point might logically proceed from our covenant. If my meaning doesn’t spring immediately to mind, perhaps the following snippet from our contract will help: “form a more perfect Union”. Yes, the U.S. Constitution which many consider the seminal document defining our government and perhaps even its purpose.

On the supposition that the preamble serves to set forth the general purposes and goals of our government then an examination of the preamble is a rational point of departure for a discussion. How then is a “more perfect Union” a purpose for our government?

The Union referred to is the collection of states that determined that their individual interests and futures, and the interests of their citizens, would be better served if they redefined the confederated government that they had been working under into one that established the federal system we have today. This is how it was formed but doesn’t explain what its expected purposes are. So let’s begin and see what it is that we have by way of expectation in the purpose for our Constitutional government.

The ‘more perfect’ is the salient semantic component of this constitutional goal. After all, we already had a Union with the Confederation; the problem was that it was not an effective and viable governmental structure. The immediate and local individual states’ interests were trumping the national needs and interests of the Confederation. Even at the start, we had difficulties in reconciling the local, state and regional versus the national views. The ‘more perfect’ sets forth a purpose and vision for our government, our union; that entailed a cohesive force that provides a single national means to deliver upon the contract. While admitting to the impossibility of delivering a ‘perfect’ Union, our Founding Fathers chose to incorporate the aspirational goal to insure that it was better at achieving it other goals.

Beyond that very American ambition, there is still more in the simple word: Union. Whether they understood it or not, the Founding Fathers encompassed a societal purpose to our federal government that it was to extend fundamental equality of rights within the nation. As the nation has matured and endured this notion of equality has broadened and strengthened as an essential principle that is both a guarantee and an obligation. This is one of the purposes of our government. Within the framework of our federal government, we have established the individual and the collective responsibility to recognize the mutual rights we are obligated to respect and grant each other; and which the government is empowered and directed to maintain in the execution of our laws. The governmental purpose imposed by the ‘Union’ context is to hold individuals, groups, states, regions, and the nation itself to abide by the equality of rights and of responsibilities that our laws delineate. This purpose includes the government’s responsibility to insure that no laws are enacted which inherently violates any other guaranteed conditions of our Constitutional compact.

While we instantly demand our rights, we rarely and reluctantly acknowledge the ‘mutual’ responsibilities required of our democratic system. It’s not hard to see how the divisive and antagonistic mentalities of our political parties have contributed to the failure of working toward are ‘more perfect’ Union. The political parties represent what the Founding Fathers had to overcome in creating the form of government Americans were willing to and still die for, the short-term and local interest over the national and societal interest. 

Government – Purpose: Do They Have One?


We think of ourselves as living in a time when people are questioning the purpose of government; and we are right, we do live in such a time. The reason is that if you are alive, you live in a time when people are questioning the purpose and the role of government.

Now there are many answers to this question which explains why it never goes away. But more importantly, you can’t answer it with any useful value until you recognize that this is a question that cannot stand alone. When you answer the purpose question as the starting point, you have left the starting line before the pistol went off and without realizing what distance race your about to run. In other words, it’s an incomplete question.

So let’s answer it anyway. What is the purpose of government?

The purpose of some governments is to maintain the social order and maintains the power structure of those that are entitled, deserving and anointed to guide their society. Other governments are intended to maximize the equitable socio-economic condition of their citizens. And some governments have defined their purpose as systems of laws to ensure and guarantee their citizens a set of rights that are universal. The purpose of government then is dependent upon how the government is established, organized and controlled.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that when an American asks: “what is the purpose of government”, that they mean “what is the purpose of our American government?”

Now, even here this is probably too simple a statement of the question and of the potential contextual space that should be considered when trying to answer it; but I suspect it will be unlikely that most people will have the patience to explore the question of the question. So I will go farther out on the limb.

Side One of the purpose of American government is simple. It is a system which is structured to organize our social life around a public space and a private space, between a commercial arena and a civic arena, and between the interests of the majority and that of the minority. And the purpose of this system is to deliver the opportunity for each citizen to live their lives according to their own design, direction and desires without intruding upon the same rights of every other citizen. That is a terse statement of our government’s fundamental purpose. It is also completely inadequate to insure that Americans would agree on what this purpose means in almost any area or on any issue that confounds, angers, frightens, inspires, or unites Americans today.

Personally I consider the purpose of our government to be the agent that is responsible for enforcing the principle: Everything that you believe you have the right to expect and demand of everyone one else in our society, you agree that they have the right to require of you.

You may think you like that principle, but I should warn you that you haven’t thought it through. I can guarantee that you will not like what it requires of you, even though it is a basic tenet of our democratic system.

I guess this will have to continue in future entries.

How To Fail Again. Again (Part 2)

Before getting to the main Christmas gift from Congress – extending the Bush/Obama-era tax-cuts, there are still more lessor gifts tucked, shoe-horned, wedged, cobbled, and stuffed under the national tree. Given it's a tax bill, it's not surprising that Congress used their hammer to pound more and more tax cuts/credits/exemptions/deferments into the bill as a compromise to gain support. Now compromise isn't a bad thing, in fact it's an essential ingredient in politics. The structure of our legislature is a compromise, the Constitution is a compromise and the Bill of Rights is a compromise. So the fact that Congress and the Administration compromised in drafting the bill is to be expected, especially since neither the Republicans nor Democrats could get a bill through Congress and signed by the President without some give and take. Whether its a good bill or not is not tied to the compromises that have been made, that question has more to do with the all-or-none nature of the tax-rate extensions, its affordability, and the true worth and impact that it will have to the nation's economy. But that is for the Part 3. Here let's shake all those other boxes chock-full of goodies for those who have been uhh! Is it naughty or nice?

We have an environmental gift for renewable energy development. Good intentions no doubt, but couldn't Congress have thought about how to make it target market conditions that impede the development of renewable energy?

There's a gift from Social Security rates, wage earners will find that the government's hand will leave more behind in their pockets as it withdraws its take this year. While few like the pay-day mugging, is reducing the extraction really going to help address the real problem with Social Security? It's underfunded and proceeding toward yet another crisis, and the solution that's going to help is postpone doing anything about the growing cancer in the system itself. Yeah, now that's leadership!

The stockings are filled with all sorts of credits and incentives: child-care, college, use of mass-transit, hybrid cars, energy efficient products, and economic development support for Gulf Coast states. All things that lots of people like, support and don't want to give up. But all things that either cost money or redistribute wealth. (FYI, redistributing wealth is a given in government and societies; but usually the redistribution, as in this case, is not from the wealthy but to the wealthy.)

The justification of everything is that it will help the economy and will create jobs (or will prevent more jobs from being lost). Sounds good, sounds important, sound critical doesn't it. But do you really believe these politicians? When was the last time that they were right? When was the last time that they did something that people liked and then turned out to help the public, as opposed to when they did something that the public thinks was completely wrong but probably was both necessary and benefited the nation?
Everyone likes getting the presents under the tree at Christmas. But how often do people regret the costs that they have to struggle to pay after Christmas because they went out and bought things that they should have known were extravagant or beyond their mean.

Burning Quran is to American Values, as Protesting Building a Mosque is to ___?

“As you sow, so shall you reap.” One of those often quoted sage insights into life that we rarely attend to because it is clearly too simple to be actually valid. Of course the same sages who would offer that advise would also council you that “to fail to learn the lessons of history will doom you to repeat them.” It makes you wonder what one can and should learn from our cultural legacies whether religious, political or societal.

Consider the Florida minister that plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. What lessons has he learned from his religious background? Does his proposed action of burning another religion’s authoritative text spring forth from any particular biblical text or Christian principle? Surely burning a religious text is what we would expect from the teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, or to “judge not, least you be judge”. But I am having difficulty reconciling his logic in connecting the “What would Jesus do?” test to assessing the righteousness of his position. And you have to wonder, even if the minister forgot to ask himself this question, did every member of his congregation also fail to see a lapse in the Christian values judgment that his decision suggests? Not clear that the minister has learned from his Christian faith much about how to treat others with humanity, charity or kindness.

But perhaps the minister is reacting from the teachings of his political milieu, from an American values tradition. Burning the Qurans would be protected by our American value in defending our freedom of speech or expression; however, while this value grants us the right to do such things the burning of books is certainly not viewed as an action that in any sense defends this right. And burning a religious text because you don’t approve of the religion yourself is not an action that supports or defends our right to religious freedom and tolerance. I suppose that here again members of his congregation can clearly explain how this event will bring honor or pride to their group even while they will have failed to live up to those American values that are so connected to preserving the freedoms our nation was founded to insure.

This leaves the minister with acting according to current social mores where hate and fear are common motivations for engaging in any number of behaviors. Now here we have a justification for his approach. In his narrow and primitive view that anyone who does not belong to his clan is a threat he is lead to take some offensive action that will cause them to be driven off. This reaction of hate and fear for anyone outside their own group is not uncommon in our country today. It resonates with the our political parties’ inability to work together, to find common cause, to compromise to achieve something of value for the public good, or to place country before party.

If the minister is wrong to burn the Quran based on any Christian, American or humanitarian value even though he lives in a society that recognizes his right to do so and will defend that right; then what do we conclude from efforts to stop a mosque being built ‘too near’ to the 9/11 Ground Zero site? Which American value is not betrayed in the case of the mosque that we see as being besmirched by burning Qurans?

When A Separate Church And State Both Advocate A Common Principle

During this morning’s church service I had a serendipitous insight into a commonality of principle between a teaching of my faith and one of the tenets of our democracy. On the faith side, the homily emphasized the principle that discipline is a salient aspect of life. This insight relates to how that discipline carries not only to my faith but equally to my political philosophy.

Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.

Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.

The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.

Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.

Don’t Ask [the Right Questions], Don’t Tell [the Truth]: The Logic of Congress and Other Special People

Watching and listening to politicians wrangle over the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the Military is yet another instance of the peoples’ elected representatives failing to deal with the issue in a complete and informed manner. Given the historic homophobic and anti-homosexual biases that have run rampant through our society, it is not surprising that there has been an issue on whether gays in the military are a socially, politically and militarily practical or acceptable concept. But now is not then. Today, Americans are generally aware enough to recognize and accept that being gay is an accepted and protected status under our Constitutional framework and democratic principles. This does not mean that there are not plenty of persons who treat gays as social pariahs and occasions in which they are at risk of being maligned, maltreated, and murdered. So while Congress and the Military leadership determine if it is acceptable for some who is gay to be ‘openly’ gay while in military service, shouldn’t they have raised some pertinent questions on this issue as part of their responsibility to the public that they are expressly dedicated to serve? [I recognize that the following questions may have been asked by someone earlier, but I haven’t noticed that these issues have been given any noteworthy attention by Congress, the Military, or the Media and thus appear to me to be unasked.]

By disallowing gays to serve openly in the military; the Government, Congress, Military, and other like-policy supporting organization/groups are limiting the representation of gays in the armed forces which effectively increases the representation of heterosexual individuals in the Military. Thus the lives of heterosexual men and women are placed at greater risk simply on a statistical basis. And why would the country, Government, Military, and Congress place a lower value on a heterosexual life? There is no way around the fact that excluding one group from the risks that military personnel face places it’s contra-group directly in the position to absorb that risk. Thus injuries to and the deaths of heterosexual military personnel are proportionately increased. If you accept an scientific perspective on evolution, you might want to consider what unintended consequences follow from the current policy.

On another front, why are the Government, Congress and Military creating a security risk for themselves and America? It seems odd that the very people charged with securing the blessing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are and have been instrumental in establishing a means to coerce military personnel to fear for their life and/or career? It doesn’t take much mental effort or insight to deduce the consequences of a “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy or harsher previous incarnations of the military’s policies toward gays with respect to the security vulnerability that they directly create. Further, even with their current policy, they haven’t recognized the inherent advantages that their own policy gives them if they established a process for protecting individuals exposed to such threats.

Lastly, what do our governmental and military leaders think the consequences are to expressly and aggressively treating one group of people as unequal and unacceptable in either our general society or even just within our military society. Do they think that such mental and behavioral distinctions will have no consequential implications for how the broader governmental and military policies will view other groups: be they racial, gender, ethnic, or religious in nature? When we accept that it individuals can be treated unequally for one dimension of their being; is it not easier to treat another group in some other rationalized unequal manner?

In our society and system of government, we should be striving to have everyone held to the same high standard of freedom, liberty and responsibility. While it is not simple or easy to live and exist in a pluralistic society, and I struggle to be open-minded about many groups myself; I don’t see why I can’t find a way to accept lifestyles that I don’t personally identify with. Perhaps it has helped to have lived through some of the turbulent social changes that America has struggled through over my life. Is extending the inclusive principle of our Democratic way of life any more unreasonable for gays than it has been for race, gender, nationality, religion, or even members of Congress?

Vapid and Hollow: Candidate or Congress?

A gauntlet has been thrown down, a supreme challenge has been made, and a duel to the death has been called for. Is this a World Wrestling Championship steel cage challenge, a Food-Network throw-down with Bobby Flay, or an Olympic grudge match between two life-long competitors? No, it’s the most recent Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan.

Kagan has written that the confirmation process has become a “vapid and hollow charade” without value or substance. A position that I have to agree has become the modus operandi of the Congressional confirmation process. An activity that is not only engaged in brazen political posturing for party-defined reasons but which is actively destructive to the interests of the American public.

The Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona said that he was concerned about appointing someone to a life-time position on the court who had the absolute final word on issues brought before the court. I hope he understands that that is not true. He as a representative of the people is specifically authorized to put forth either appropriate law consistent with the Constitution to achieve the results that he believes are needed, or to even sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land is administered by the Supreme Court; but it is ultimately the Will of the People that determine what the Supreme Law of the Land is.

And was the challenge made by the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership? No, it was made, perhaps without expectation that it would become applicable to herself, by the nominee when she worked as a staff lawyer for the Judiciary Committee. So while not made by the people’s representative body that is charged with the responsibility for ‘advise and consent’ on the approval of Supreme Court justices, the challenge exists; but will it be accepted? Will Congress fulfill their responsibility? Will they do their duty to serve the interests of the people and our democratic and Constitutional principles in approving or rejecting the nominee? Or, will Congress put on another Party-centric, ideological, self-serving image-promoting farce where the measure of success will be the number of minutes of media coverage that individual Congressional members will receive? And will the media support this dismal display of vacuous content without attempting to exert itself enough to even comment on their own lack of insight into the lack of meaning or insight on the part of the politicians?

Perhaps we will be surprised this time. Perhaps, either the nominee, a member of Congress (or two), or both will step forward and do something meaningful; if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the American people (and even their colleagues) that they possess a sense of history, of responsibility, maybe even a degree of intellect or of understanding the essential role fulfilled by an independent judiciary.

For Congress’ players in this theater, they (or their staff) would have to craft questions that are central to gaining an appreciation of what perspective the nominee has on the role and obligations of Supreme Court justices, on how they view and comprehend the rational, justifications, and basis of current law and current precedents and ruling of prior Supreme Court cases. Congress might even ask the nominee whether any decision by the Supreme Court could be anything but ‘activist judicial’ action.

For the nominee, she could engage both the public and Congress in her responses the Committee questions. First, besides responding to her inquisitors, she could talk to the media and the public as she is answering the questions being asked. Second, she could analyze and critique the quality of the questions in the manner in which she responds. She would of course want to do so in a polite and respectfully manner, even in cases where the questioner is unaware of their own lack of propriety in acting on behalf of the American public.

What America needs and deserves is a procedure and process which shows that the participants properly recognize their responsibility to the American people, to our Democratic principles, and to the spirit of governmental institutions that serve the rights and liberties of a freedom loving citizenry.

Civility and Parties: Opening Pandora’s Box

Pardon me if you anticipated some discourse on manners and social occasions, but the topic is slanted toward the political rather than the amiable gathering. We hear Democrats and Republicans alike collectively espousing the importance for everyone to behave in a respectful and civil manner. However their self-righteous lecturing sounds a dissonant cord, incongruent with their regular and bombastic diatribes against their opponents or individuals who hold an independent or divergent view. These Party pillars of political puffery preach that they do not advocate violent action against other because according to them, in America we do not advocate violence as a political means. They then proceed, almost without even a grammatical pause between their pronouncements of civility and respect, to rail against whomever dares to contest their positions or authority on what is right. I believe that the idiom which applies is: That once should practice what you preach.

If this behavior were simply just another characteristic demonstration of their skills, understanding and wisdom then we can hardly be amazed by our political leaders. As they do not exhibit any propensity for ability, comprehension or judgment in their legislative efforts; should we really expect that they would perform any better in their campaign ventures? With their persistent demonization of their immediate opponent, whether that is from within their own party or is on the other side, are these partisan individuals completely oblivious to the motivations and stimulus that they induce in supporters? Perhaps they don’t understand the power that words have to evoke and justify actions which they will later insist that they had neither the intention nor the expectation of propagating. Is this the caliber of intellect that the ‘best and brightest’ of our elected officials are capable of bringing to the table? Apparently so.

Regardless of their objectives in employing their invective oratory to garner the political support of voters and lobbying organizations, they are culpable for the harvest that comes from the seeds that they have sown. Who does not know that breeding hatred and prejudice will bear a bitter fruit? As we see the rancor and hostility that has become the norm between the Parties in Congress, between the Party loyalist in public events, and among position-aligned media entities offering biased and self-serving grist; there can be no doubt that the Parties are the manure that feeds the weeds of hatred and violence that comes from this ignorance.

When party-line adherents begin to take violent actions against individuals or groups that they have been convinced are the enemy or need to be punished for their transgressions, this creates the catalyst for reciprocation. Provoking the ‘eye for an eye’ reaction is too often an impulsive reaction that occurs from that primitive mentality that sees itself being attacked and that defending itself allows for and justifies actions that are contrary to and beneath our American creed. The consequences of politically advocating hate is never going to produce benefits for anyone in the society except the politicians who will gain position and power by feeding the rapacious fear that they engender. The founding Fathers intended that our democratic system would be driven by honorable people striving to serve the people and to deliver to the people peace, health, happiness, prosperity, and liberty. None of these American values are promoted by nor secured through the dispensation of hatred and division; and the politician who rely upon divisive language and behavior are remiss in their duty to America and lack the integrity consistent with American values.

The only recourse for the American public to avoid the dangers and disasters that will and has sprouted from this irresponsibility of the Parties, is to stand-up to the politicians and political groups that fixate on position but not issue, on self-righteousness but not justice, and on rights but not responsibilities. Your decision to participate, support and vote for any candidate must be because they offer solutions to real problems that they explain and discuss sufficiently to convince you that you understand the problem and that they understand the problem and that their remedy is appropriate, effective and rational. Yes, it will be difficult to find a politician that can or will do this; but you do have the one thing that will force them to change their behavior and to serve your interests and not theirs. You have the vote that they desire and require. Without your support they are impotent, unless you are inactive and passively let them proceed without any consequence from ignoring your interests.

The Supremes Hit A Sour Note

The US Supreme Court made a major ruling today on campaign financing law. They restored the rights of corporations and labor unions to contribute funds on par with any other private citizen. The limitations that had been in-effect that restricted their contributions was deemed a violation of their free-speech rights. This decision reverses a century of Supreme Court established rules that was viewed as protecting the private citizens against the undue influence that corporations and labor unions could leverage against individuals with no-where near their resources. That interpretative view had persisted under Supreme Courts that favored Republican and Democratic appointed members.

So I want to join in with all the rest of you in celebrating this grand victory for the corporations. I have fretted for years at their lack of influence in Washington. Finally, they will be able to choose your legislators and leaders, I mean join with you in helping your choose them. No longer will they be excluded from the back-rooms and closed door meetings that you and I are allowed to attend and that they are not. Wait! I don’t remember any Administration task-force or any Congressional committee letting average citizens into their deliberations (or inequitable distribution of funding). Well at least, they have never let corporate and labor union leaders participate in such meeting either. We have never had to worry about nor heard about the improper influence that Congressmen or Administration officials have allowed corporations or labor unions.

I am sure that this day will be remembered and celebrated in coming years as a re-affirmation of free-speech and basic American rights just like we celebrate the 4th of July. That is if the corporations and labor unions what us to, otherwise they will have their personally selected politicians entertain us with some other critical and essential issue that is of no importance or impact to their interests. Of course, we free citizens can also contribute to the political campaigns of our preferred candidates, who will no doubt pay as much attention to our views as they will to the super-huge donors that are now free to express their views on what is important and what needs to be addressed in legislation and administration of our government.

I would like to have one thing changed in the system however. Since corporations and labor unions have equal status as individuals under the law that given the absence of a corporeal entity who is treated according to the same legal consequences that you or I would, that the CEO or President of these entities be held accountable to the same legal consequences that you or I would. So if the corporation or union was found guilty of a criminal action that would have you or I put to death then as the stand-in individual for these non-living citizens that they would be executed on the corporations’/unions’ behalf.

If this one rule were put in place then I suspect that corporate executives and union leaders would be vigorously advocating that they should not be treated as citizen-equals who can spend money that is not even their own to influence the politics of the country. I suspect that corporations and unions would be willing to trust in the wisdom and judgment of the citizenry and the electorate.

And now that I think of it, why aren’t corporations and labor unions already properly and adequately represented by the citizenry and electorate that well own and constitute these entities. Don’t these individuals already have the right to fund political campaigns and to exercise their right to free-speech?

Isn’t letting corporations and unions participate in politics given some people extra rights, above and beyond those of most other citizens? Is this really protecting my freedoms? Well, as long as I am one of the people benefiting from the advantage and getting more rights than the rest of you, it will be ok with me. Otherwise, no, I don’t approve.

Americans Selecting The Cave - Losing International Perspective

Are Americans increasingly thinking that the best approach to life is to retreat from international affairs? A newspaper item about a recently released Pew Research Center poll provides some indication that a sizeable portion of the current generation (30 and under) is of the opinion that America should “mind its own business internationally” and leave others to their own interests, and that we “should go our own way” without consideration of other nations’ agreement.

While this boiled-down and grossly over-simplified assessment of American opinion regarding how the US should deal with other nations is a broad brush view, it is undoubtedly a telling perspective of how the latest generation sees our place and responsibilities in the world. This generation has grown up in an era where the highly media-covered American efforts and actions abroad have for the most part been very unsuccessful. We get engaged in wars and conflicts that we can quickly bring to a military end, but are then unable to extract ourselves from ever extending follow-on situations where success not only evades us, but we begin to lose ground on the very victory that we thought we had attained. I am not just speaking of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, but the general conflicts throughout the Middle-East, Africa and Southeast Asia. We have tried and failed to win our wars on Poverty, on Drugs, and on Crime. The current generation has lost ground in education, health care, job security and earning potential relative to the previous generation. And as a nation we are more dependent on foreign entities for oil & other resources, consumer and business goods, and economic stability (foreign investment). We are the greatest nation in the world, a true super-power that is suffering from a debilitating degenerative disease that is sapping our strength and will.

So given all these troubles and astonishing lack of successes, it is no wonder that people are starting to think that America could solve most of its problems if we stayed out of international affairs to the greatest extent possible and if we focused on going it alone doing it our way. This may be an attractive and easily understood approach to want to pursue; but it neither will nor could work out for us. It violates the basic reality that we do not live in an isolatable system.

First to be left alone and to leave others alone requires that the ‘others’ agree to allow you to be left alone. Now while this ‘just leave me alone’ approach has always worked out extremely well for everyone who previously used it, like the Aztecs, the native American Indians, the opening of Japan to the West in 1853, the Roman Empire to the Mongal horde just to mention a few. When someone else has an interest in what they view you as having, they rarely just leave you alone.

Next, the very greatness of America to a large extent is derived from the fact that people came to America to make a better life for themselves. They came to a place where the ‘rules that everyone lived by’ were not rigid and age-old traditions that you could not violate. People found new and better ways to do things and America prospered. We kept taking the next step, seizing the opportunities, enriching ourselves from our creativity, and opening doors that others did not even see as doors. To choose to close ourselves off from the ‘outside’ only limits our access to more opportunities to advance and prosper.

And then there is the most important reason of all to live in the real world. America was created and grew from a spirit that looked outward, that sought the distant horizon, and that truly reached for the stars. Shrinking back from what is hard and difficult, what everyone thinks cannot be done is not the American way. We may have lost focus and have gotten lazy, but to live we must choose to move forward or we accept that we are not the future and let other overtake us. Either we believe in ourselves and our affirmation that freedom and democracy are the only way that we will live; or we crawl away to our caves and leave the world to the fitter survivors to come. You can hide and die, or do and live. It’s your choice.