Help me understand . . .

Ok, so Bush and the Republicans are to blame for our current financial crisis (as long as we ignore a LOT of facts regarding how we got here). So who is to blame for California's current situation?

Please Excuse the Delay

The thing about a blog on the subject of politics is that you can't just type extemporaneously. You have to have your facts straight. If you don't, you WILL get called out on it.

I am still working on the 10th v 14th Amendment topic (specifically on the topic of gay rights). The problem is, there is a TON of research to do.

1) What were the founding fathers thinking when the 10th Amendment was written?
2) What was the thought process of Congress when the 14th Amendment was crafted (specifically in light of the 10th Amendment)?
3) What, specifically (if anything), give the Federal Government the right to govern over Human Rights issues?
4) How does Article IV, Section 1 affect Human Rights issues?
5) How does Article I, Section 8 affect these issues?
6) How has case law changed things over time?

I know what my opinion is, but is that opinion in any way grounded in history and the law? I think it is, but I want to be sure before regaling you, dear reader, with it.

Will it be worth the wait? For me, yes. It is a learning experience and a way for me to further decide if I think politics is worth my time. For you? Well, that will be entirely up to you to decide.

On the subject of good hair and states' rights

I recently found myself involved in a discussion on Facebook about an article pillorying Governor Good-Hair (Governor Rick Perry for those not in-the-know) for a couple of unrelated comments he has made over the past few weeks. The comments were taken out of context and then linked to show a supposed inconsistency in his stances. Basically, it is trying to say that he wants to refuse the US government on one hand, but wants their help on the other. I found this article to be just a BIT disingenuous. I mean, go after him on real issues or corruption, there are plenty of things to talk about; there is no need to manufacture them.

The discussion has covered a lot of tangential points, so I will need to break this up into three different blog posts:

I. GGH’s comments and the 10th Amendment

II. The 14th Amendment versus the 10th Amendment

III. GGH’s refusal to take the government stimulus money – A good or bad choice?

Part 1: States Rights and SUCH Great Hair!

Personally, I see no contradiction between GGH's stance against accepting stimulus cash and his request that a portion of the nation's stockpile of flu vaccine to be sent to Texas to combat the spread of swine flu as far as, and this is important so please pay attention to this, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is concerned. I am not saying he is correct to refuse the cash (although, in general, I do not like the idea of creating temporarily funded entitlement programs. They are historically difficult to end). I am just saying that his two comments are not inconsistent, although there are pundits who would like you to believe that they are and that he is an idiot.


(Ok, they are right about that second part.)

This argument is all about the 10th Amendment, which states, "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."

GGH stated that he believed the federal government was overstepping its bounds by trying to force states to create entitlement programs for which there are limited funds. He then went on to say that if the government kept doing it, he wasn't sure what the outcome would be, but secession was possible. Now, he didn't say that Texas WOULD secede; he just said it was possible. He was wrong; it isn't possible . . . at least, not legally. But he was right that the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the central government and that they are overstepping their bounds.

Certainly some amount of political grandstanding is involved here. The government has been violating the 10th Amendment for a century now. But his real point was that if Texas, or any other state, accepts this money and creates these programs, the state and its taxpayers will still be on the hook for funding these programs in 10 years when the federal funding ends. This is especially tough on states like Texas that don't have state income tax. We will have to raise our sales tax (which is a tax on the poor just as much as the rich), institute a state income tax, or allow the entitlement to go unfunded. This is a federal government demand on state taxpayers. This is not allowed under the 10th Amendment. If you look at what the federal government is allowed to do under the Constitution it is pretty much just entering into international treaties, creating a currency, raising a military, and regulating international and interstate trade. That's it. There have been some expansions of the federal government’s powers over the years, but forcing the state to create programs is not one of them. Certainly forcing states to tax their citizens to fund programs they didn't want or vote for is not a right granted to the federal government.

His second comment was in regard to flu vaccines. He requested that a portion of the national stockpile be made ready for distribution in Texas. He didn't ask for the government to pay for it (the individual does that) and he didn't ask the government to force people to take it. He asked that it be made available. This does not violate the 10th Amendment. In fact, the federal government isn't doing anything; the state of Texas is. Texas doesn't have a stockpile of flu vaccine so they need to get them from somewhere. The government has a stockpile, so the state is requesting some be made available. I see nothing wrong with that from a Constitutional standpoint. I mean, when you need bread you go to a baker, right? If you need a boat-load of vaccine you go to the place that has the product you need in numbers sufficient to your need. No 10th Amendment issue there. Again, the federal government isn't doing anything at all, the state is. If the federal government was forcing Texas to take the stockpile against their will you would have a 10th Amendment violation on your hands.

So, to sum up, he is not against the US or the federal government; he is not against the relationship between the state and the federal government; and he is not arguing out of both sides of his mouth in some sort of inconsistent manner. He is attempting, poorly, to bring focus back on the 10th Amendment and the rights and roles attributed to each layer of government.

Well, that and he is trying to make a name for himself on the national scene. I can only hope he fails.

NEXT UP!!! The 14^th Amendment and the 10^th Amendment

The war on . . .

Sorry this has taken so long. Fiscal year-end hit and all I have done for the past week is work. Some of us can't vote ourselves a paycheck out of the public coffers, you know.

We like war in America.

Think about it. We really do. Not the fact of war; we have no stomach for that anymore, but the idea of it . . . the battle and eventual triumph of good over evil. We have the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the War on Crime, the War on Corruption, the War on Obesity and the War on High Prices. Now we have a new war that is capturing the attention of the nation, the War on the Wealthy.

Let me start by saying that I am not wealthy, I have never been wealthy, and although I desire to some day be at least slightly-soiled (as opposed to filthy) rich, I doubt that I will get there anytime soon. So, this is not going to be a defense of the rich by one of their ranks. It is simply a discussion about how and why the War on the Wealthy is about as misguided as anything could possibly be.

Recent weeks have seen an attempt at punitive taxation by Congress, an increase in state taxation (to take care of any dollars that Congress missed with it's 90% tax bill. Thank you Barney Frank!), proposals to limit deductions that people who make over $250,000 in household income can take for charitable giving, proposed decreases in tax credits for people who really don't make all that much money, protests against people who earn more money than you do, etc. Basically, an all out war against the rich, especially bankers.

Right now, if there is a problem in America, it is probably some rich guy's fault. In fact, reality is beginning to imitate the cartoons. Or perhaps you would like a more recent take on things. All of this leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I believe people should be allowed to keep the money they earn. Of course, this would require smaller government which we will get into (taxation and the role of the government) at another time.

The problem with sweeping generalizations . . .

I think part of the problem is that our government has made a sweeping generalizations about what it means to be rich. This generalization is not based on reality.

First of all, let's look at cost of living. There is no comparison between, say, New York City and Houston. A person making $60,000 in Houston can live a fairly comfortable lifestyle. Nice car, nice home, etc. Not overly luxurious, but a nice life. In order to live the same lifestyle in NYC a person will have to make $105,000. Uh, oh! Suddenly this guy who has no more ability to live a lavish lifestyle than he did when making $60,000 in Houston has a whole new set of problems. He is now "rich" and has an increased tax burden.

Here is an example of what I mean, taken from the New York Times, "[t]hat tax credit annually will provide $400 to low-wage and middle-income workers or $800 to couples; Mr. Obama would like to increase those figures to $500 and $1,000. The credit phases out for those with incomes above $75,000 a year and for couples with incomes of more than $150,000; no benefit would go to individuals with more than $100,000 income and couples with $200,000." It isn't important which tax credit they are discussing. What is important is that a) if you make more than $75,000 you are considered "upper-income" and therefore rich enough not to need tax credits and b) someone who makes a decent wage in Houston will be subject to this decrease in tax credit simply because they move to New York and maintained the same salary level (in relative terms). What we are talking about here is purchasing power parity. A person in Houston has more PPP than a person in New York. Put simply, a dollar in Houston does NOT equal a dollar in New York.

As you can see, it doesn't take long to suddenly find yourself in a position where, although you are not richer in real terms you are burdened by additional taxes. This is the problem with defining things like "upper-income" or "rich" in absolute dollar terms. If I made $100,000 living in Houston I WOULD consider myself to be rich. If I made $100,000 living in New York, I would NOT consider myself rich.

But, wait. Shouldn't the rich pay more?

Sure, the rich make more money, they take more from the system, so they should also give more back. The problem is, they already pay the majority of the taxes. How much more? Well, lets take a look.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

So, the top 1% make 19% of the money, and pay 37% of the taxes, and so forth (in theory. . . but there may be problems with this analysis. Read here for more information). But what exactly is that showing us?

Basically, the higher the percent of you take from the collective earnings of the country, the higher the percent of the total tax bill you foot. Somewhere between the 6th and 10th percentile your percent of total income equals your percent of the total tax bill you pay. That makes sense.

I did a few graphs to try to make it clearer. In this one, I just did the math from the previous graph. If the top 1% makes 19% of the income and the top 5% make 33% then the 2nd through 5th percentile must make 14% (33% - 19% = 14%) and so on.

I don't know if the bar graph is as clear as the line graph, so I added both.

And if we look at who makes/pays what by the two halves:

There is certainly a lot of money being made by the top 50%. One thing that is not clear from these graphs, and I have not been able to locate a good page to break it down for me, is what percentage of the bottom 50% are teens or college kids with summer jobs, second household incomes who file separately from their higher-paid spouse/partner/whatever, people who are working only part time, or people who are trying to live on that salary. Also, where do these people live? As I demonstrated above, you need to make more money in certain areas than others with no change in lifestyle. Perhaps not everyone on that bottom 50% is doing to poorly for themselves.

So, what we can see is that, as it should be, the richer you are, the more you pay in taxes (by the way, did you notice that the top 1% pay 37% of the tax bill and the top 10% pay 68%? This means that the bottom 90% only pay 32% of the tax bill, or less than the top 1%). But who are these people? Well, you don't have to make as much as you think to be near the top of the income-earning heap. Here are the numbers for 2006.

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$388,806	39.89
Top 5%	$153,542	60.14
Top 10%	$108,904	70.79
Top 25%	$64,702	86.27
Top 50%	$31,987	97.01
Bottom 50%	<$31,987	2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, our friend from Houston who moved to New York, and is still only able to afford a modest living is now almost among the top 10% of wage earners. Congratulations! Even in Houston he was in the top 26% or so.

What are you saying?

So what is my point? I don't know. I had one when I stated this post 10 days ago, but lost it somewhere along the line.

I guess I just find it ridiculous that some complain about people who work 60+ hours per week getting something in return for that hard work. If you want to make more money, work harder, learn a new skill (preferably one that is in demand), go back to school, finish school, whatever it takes. Don't just begrudge somebody else for taking the risks and making the sacrifices that you weren't willing to make (and before anyone jumps on my back about differing opportunities and stuff like that, in this day and age where we have online schooling, free internet access at libraries and things like that, ANYONE can learn a new skill if they have the mind to do so).

I guess it just makes me angry to hear about people getting death threats because they got a bonus they earned. I mean, I don't hear anyone complaining about sales guys getting their commissions regardless of how they company they sell for does. Why would anyone complain that a guy who made over $100 million for his company got a bonus based on his success even if the company is failing? Had the guys at AIG not made that money (assuming the people in question are not the ones who caused the problems they are having) then the company would have needed even more of the taxpayers' money. I sure wouldn't want that. What I want is for the company that borrowed so much money from me to attract and/or keep the talented individuals that can make money to pay me back. You have to be willing an able to pay people for their work. And to put this in perspective:

US GDP for 2008 - 14,400,000,000,000
Fed bailout/loan/guarantees - 12,800,000,000, or (88.89% of GDP)
AIG bailout - 176,000,000,000 or (1.22% of GDP)
AIG Bonuses - 165,000,000 or (0.001% of GDP)

I guess I just find the continued move toward the redistribution of wealth and the "from each according to their ability" attitude tiring. When did we stop being a nation that saw the value in hard work and started being a nation of, "If I can't live in a big house and drive a nice car no one should!" I like the way my father-in-law shows his envy. Instead of thinking the guy he sees in a nice car or house or whatever doesn't deserve those things he says, "I wish I had that and he had something better."

I guess I just find the generalization of lifestyle based on income level to be based on something other than reality. This goes toward my beliefs about taxation and the role of government, but I think we need to rework the tax system so that it is less complicated and so that we are not overburdening the very people who already foot most of the bill.

The Economy

I'm not sure I'm ready to tackle something as big as this issue, yet. Too much going on with too many entangled pieces. But here are a few thoughts (oversimplifications, really):

• There is plenty of blame to go around on this one. I find it mildly amusing when the parties point fingers at each other on the economy. At this point I don't know who is worse, the tax-and-spend Democrats or the cut-taxes-and-spend Republicans. Probably the Republicans. At least the Democrats are being true to who they are; you knew what you were getting when you voted for them. The Republicans seem to have lost their sense of direction and identity. They are as close to losing all relevance as the Democrats were a few years ago. Don't worry. If there is one thing I have confidence in it is the political parties' ability to give their opponents back their relevancy by being stupid.
  
• The government supporting Lehman, or at least supporting a buyer, would probably have been a cheaper move in the long run. The credit markets might not have frozen and there would possibly be less need for "stimulus." Remember, the markets froze because banks lost confidence that other banks would be around the next day to repay their overnight loans. If you can't rely on a bank to repay their loans, how can you rely on the average person?
  
• The stimulus bill will not end the economic problems. There is too much pointless spending and not enough stimulus. The lesson we SHOULD have learned from the Great Depression is that you can't spend yourself out of a recession . . . you can't borrow yourself out of debt. So much for new ideas!
  
• Positive economic news has started popping up (January and February numbers). This means that, if the recovery has started (fingers crossed), it started before one cent of "stimulus" money was spent. Is it because the Bush administration did something right? Is it because Obama's election gave people enough hope to get out there and spend? Or is it because these things happen in pretty regular cycles? I think it is likely a combination of the last two. Certainly the Bush Administration can't be credited with too many correct moves.
• If the recovery has started on its own, that makes the stimulus package more worrying, in my opinion. Do you think the politicians are going to forgo their earmarks and pet projects just because the "stimulus" isn't needed anymore?
  
• Worrying about $165 million in bonuses out of the BILLIONS that are being thrown at AIG is a straw man meant to distract you from the other things the government is trying to do . . . or should be doing, but haven't got a clue on how to do it (re: unfreezing credit markets and stimulating the economy). Oh, and the bonuses were not bad things. They were paid out to people who worked to keep the company from collapsing. Read one person's perspective here. They worked hard for that money. Not just during this crisis, but all their lives to get to where they are.
  
• A hint for Congress, punitive taxation is not a good thing. It does not set a good precedent. Oh, and let's talk about those new cars you all just voted for yourselves in the "stimulus" package.
• I think Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" should be required reading for anyone elected to office.

OK, so this ended up being more of a rant than I intended. More thoughtful and well-researched post next time. I promise.

Unless I get mad again.

How Smart Were our Founding Fathers?

I want to get into issues pretty quickly, but I think it is important to give a good background on why I believe the things I believe. I think this will save a lot of time later.

I think that most people's political ideologies are formed over time; first through their parents and then through their experiences (and hopefully through their education, both formal and informal). So, to continue to give you a little background on my political formation and thoughts . . .

Aside from some glaring issues regarding who should be allowed to vote, and to whom freedoms should be ascribed, I think the Founding Fathers were pretty damned smart. Case in point, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Within this one phrase are so many signs of their brilliance.

. . . all [people] are created equal . . .

Think about what this phrase means. It is revolutionary for its time. It means that there is no royalty; there is no divine right of kings; anyone from any level of society can consider themselves as worthy as any other person; there is no reason so swear loyalty to any person. This part of the phrase is what makes the American form of government possible, and different from other Western democracies that still recognize a monarch as head of state (no matter how ceremonial that monarch is).

It also means we have no caste system, so anyone, regardless of race, gender, creed, bank balance, etc., can get ahead in society. Whether you voted for President Obama or not, he proves this to be the case. Well, he proves that we are moving in that direction. I think Secretary Clinton's rise to power (and near-nomination for the Presidency) is also an example of this.

One of the key points here is that we were created equal. This does not mean that this equality can and should be maintained. It means that we all have the same abilities and potential at birth. What we choose to do with these abilities and potential is up to us. This is what allows those who desire to do so to advance in society. This is pretty key to my beliefs. We are all born with potential but it is up to us, not anyone else, to do something with this potential.

. . . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is the part of the sentence that really gets me, and that forms the basis of my political reasoning. Not only are these rights inviolate and not contingent upon the rule of law, but the Founding Fathers, I believe, put them in the correct order, which is something I think we tend to forget these days. The right to life (not in the abortion sense) is the most important, followed by our right to liberty, and finally our right to pursue those things that make us happy.

This was not a new concept, really. As stated by John Locke (not the Lost character), "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." And as stated in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

All of my political beliefs flow from this concept and from the concept, as espoused by John Stuart Mill, that my rights end where your nose begins:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"

So, that is the foundation on which I began building my political ideology.

A Little Bit About Me

I guess the best place to start is by giving you a bit of background about who I am, politically.

I have, until recently, considered myself to be a Republican. With the hijacking of the Republican party by the neo-conservative and evangelical movements I find that that label no longer fits. These days I think of myself as more of a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. A paleo-conservative, if you will, in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the more I look into Roosevelt the more similarities I see between our political ideologies.

We'll get into these topics in depth later, but basically I believe that what you do in the privacy of your home is no one's business but yours, as long as your activities do not infringe on other people's rights. I also believe that no one has a right to the money I earn except me. I believe that we have only one environment and whether we are causing global warming or not, if we have the ability and technology to do things in a cleaner fashion we are stupid not to do so. Finally, I believe that the separation of Church and State is one of the greatest ideas anyone has ever had in the history of the world and should be defended at all cost.

So that is an extremely brief synopsis of where I come from. What about you?