Political Rant - 2011

Ultimately, of course, we all pay, and it is legitimate that what we pay for should reflect the values of our society as well as the realities of the economic environment.  Americans are essentially humane (Christian, if you will) people who believe in making some sacrifices in order to help out those in need.  Unfortunately, if this is institutionalized, someone will take advantage and abuse it.  On the other hand, if it is not institutionalized, thereby taking advantage of what I believe is called "economy of scale" (marshaling large resources to accomplish large projects) which only government can actually do, and that by taxation (which no one likes), some important things simply cannot be done - building the interstate highway system, for example. 

Of course, there are other, more controversial aspects of government assistance (welfare, for example) which may lend themselves to greater abuse and may tend to the development of a culture of dependency which is not really healthy in the long run or financially tenable even in the short run.  And yet there are many families in this country who, through no fault of their own, are unable to make ends meet on even a modest basis.  I don't believe that Americans want to cut such families adrift on the principle that "anyone who is willing to work hard can make it big in America".  There are far too many unemployed automotive engineers and nurses in this country for that to be credible.

In sum, for us to be who we want to be, both strong and good, disciplined and humane, we will need to make some tough choices.  The first of these is to treat humanitarian programs seriously and pay a lot more attention to making sure that what they do is what they're intended to do, not be simply an all-you-can-eat buffet for anyone who wants a snack, but a decent source of basic nourishment for those who can't realistically get it any other way.  Same principle should apply to all other government programs.  Do what we need done, but be VERY careful and responsible about how the money gets spent.  Instances of criminal malfeasance in the use of government contracting, etc. might reasonably be regarded as treasonable and treated accordingly.  This would take a bit of lawmaking, but seems necessary.  There have been far too many pigs (both individual and corporate) in the governmental trough for far too long.  THIS MUST STOP!

The other aspect of this which must change is, alas, taxation.  We must have more revenue in order to both pay our bills and continue to function as a humane, modern society.  Relative to other first world countries, our taxes are grotesquely low, our corporations are making enormous amounts of money, and yet the whole "supply-side economics" concept which enjoyed such a vogue in the 80's does not seem to be getting the job done.  There are certainly tax loopholes for the wealthy which should be closed, but the biggest loophole is the absurdly low marginal tax rates paid by those who get the most out of living in this country. 

I hear well-meaning people complain that to tax the "producers" (not Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder) is to hamstring economic growth, and I agree.  However, the claim that everyone who is rich is a "producer" is untrue.  Stockbrokers and investment bankers are professional gamblers who produce nothing for anyone and who get rich retrading stocks which long ago ceased capitalizing business growth.  I strongly urge that LTCG's from stock trading be taxed as ordinary income.  Ditto, dividends.  Those forms of earning represent nothing which provides jobs or adds materially to the real wealth and value of the economy.  It is a purely individual benefit, and though there's nothing wrong with that, there is also no reason not to treat it as ordinary income.  The sole exception to this is profits resulting from investments in IPO stock, stocks sold by a corporation to capitalize growth.  THAT creates jobs and economic growth and should be taxed at lower rate than ordinary income, lower even than that accorded other long term capital gains, say, 5%.  This will encourage economic growth and individual investment in that growth.

IRAQ - Written 2003

I am deeply concerned that the United States, under the apparently tunnel-visioned direction of President Bush, is about to take the unprecedented step of launching an all-out war on a sovereign nation which has not attacked us or our allies-by-treaty.  Historically, we have held the moral high ground precisely because we have never done such a thing, and I am troubled that we now risk sacrificing this enviable and unique standing in the world community for no very clear purpose.

I am firmly convinced that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a bully of the first order, but I am equally convinced that this is precisely why we do not need to worry about his attacking us.  He went adventuring in the Middle East several years ago and was all but annihilated by us.  He has remained very quiet ever since.  Like most bullies, he only seeks fights he can win.  He is not a religious fanatic like Osama bin Laden.  Indeed, there is little to suggest that he has any religious beliefs whatever.  He is a tyrant who oppresses his own people and sells oil to us and our allies to support his regime.  He does not want to harm his best customers, especially knowing we can turn his capitol into a sheet of trinitite any time we feel the need.

I am all for enforcing the UN’s weapons inspections with all the force required.  I am all for destroying anything we can reasonably identify as an arms manufactory.  And if our intelligence resources are all President Bush would have us believe, we shouldn’t have much trouble doing exactly that.

But we are not going to turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian democracy by killing Saddam Hussein, and if we did it would only create another sphere of active conflict which, like Israel, we would feel honor-bound to defend while it progressively antagonized its more “traditional” neighbors.

To date, our standing in the Middle East has been founded on our role as peacemakers and our historic tendency to bring a voice of reason to situations of international chaos.  Now we are proclaiming our intention to invade Iraq, not because they are producing “weapons of mass destruction” (North Korea, Pakistan, China, India, France, Israel and ourselves are also doing so), but because President Bush has a private feud with Saddam Hussein.  We claim we are doing this to bring peace to the region, but the only party threatening to start a war in the Middle East is George Bush.

There are doubtless good reasons for depriving Iraq of their weapons of mass destruction, but the United Nations and a worldwide cooperative process of methodical identification and surgical removal is the way to go if it can be done.  Otherwise, we convince even moderate middle-easterners that we are exactly as Osama bin Laden has painted us, we will have alienated our traditional allies, we will have killed and lost thousands of human beings, burdened our struggling economy with enormous costs, and we will not have achieved a thing that cannot be undone in another ten years.  Even if we manage to kill Saddam Hussein, which we have no right to do either under international law or our own traditional policies, this will merely create a lot of antagonism and a power vacuum in Iraq which, by a natural process we have seen in action a hundred times, will ultimately be filled by whoever is brutal and unscrupulous enough to take over.

War against Iraq, as President Bush would have it, is stupidity of the worst sort and is exactly why a majority of American voters did not want Bush to be president.  He is immature, ego-challenged, impulsive, historically naïve, and not very bright.  No doubt he means well after his fashion, but he is sending our country into a violent morass of unimaginable complexity and ramification, and he seems to be doing it because he feels humiliated over the events of 9/11/01 and not because it is the right thing to do.