Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 4

I'm sorry it has taken so long for me to complete this commentary. It has been a busy time of year, both personally and professionally. Please forgive me. For your assistance in understanding this Part 4, I am referring to a series of commentaries, Parts 1-3, which were published in A Moment's Pause in September 2011.

When I first read my nephew's response to the video of Ms. Warren's speech I was puzzled. I could not understand why he reacted with such vehemence to something which seemed to me to be so sensible and, frankly, not very controversial. I couldn't understand it.

My first thought was to go through his response line by line, correcting the factual errors. But, as I thought about it, I realized that it would take a long time to write a response correcting them all, and even after I did, that wasn't really the point. It was obvious that, even if his facts were correct, he'd still have the same opinion, and hold it just as strongly. The factual errors were irrelevant to his opinion.

My next thought was to write a response which would refute the logic of his opinion. I considered how to do that, but, without intending to be insulting or demeaning, it seemed pointless to try to refute something which on its face seemed so illogical. Sometimes the hardest argument to refute is the one which is logically farthest off the mark. The smaller the logical errors, the easier it is to dicuss them logically. The larger the logical errors, the more it becomes like nailing jello to the wall trying to refute them.

That set me to thinking more about his response. I finally realized that the key reason his response seemed so illogical and so extreme to me was found in this phrase: "And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either."

We fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the social contract, but, even more concerning, we apparently fundamentally disagreed on whether there was a social contract!

Merriam-Webster defines "social contract" as "an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each." [Emphasis added.]

I have studied the concept of a "social contract" since grade school social studies. I read about it in connection with the philosophical ideas that supported the formation of the United States. I studied it in college and in some detail in law school.

I never, ever, heard anyone express the idea that a member of a society was not bound by that society's social contract unless they had signed it. Never have I heard the idea that the social contract could be signed. Never have I heard it expressed that a member of a society had any choice about agreeing to or disagreeing with that society's social contract.

The social contract simply exists. Every member of a society is bound by it. There are consequences for an individual if they do not abide by their society's social contract.

Frankly, it is frightening to think that otherwise reasonable, well-educated members of my society think they are not bound by the social contract. There lies anarchy.

Of course, even assuming that reasonable minds can agree that every member of a society is bound by that society's social contract, whether they want to be or not, there is still the question of what that social contract is. It is different for different societies, and has often been different for the same society at different times.

For example, I cannot know, but I have read that in ancient Japan any member of the Samurai class could kill any member of another class at any time, for any reason or no reason, without consequence.

Whether this is true or not, clearly, that is not the social contract of modern day U.S. society. It is something else, but what is it?

Very seldom does anyone discuss the terms of their society's social contract. It is merely assumed that, as a result of being reared within a society, the terms of the social contract are known. But, that may be an incorrect assumption, especially in today's world. Maybe we don't all just "know" the terms of our social contract. And, if we don't - if we are all operating under a different understanding of the terms of our social contract - then we must expect frequent, perhaps constant, conflict with other members of our society. And, if there are a sizable number of us within a society who think they have no obligation to abide by the social contract, regardless of what it may be, because they've never "signed" it, we are doomed to at least some of the anarchy which that forbodes.

As I thought about this, I realized that it was very difficult for me to articulate what I thought were the terms of my society's social contract. When I finally mentally stumbled on the phrase which I felt encapsulated the terms of my society's social contract, I was shocked to realize that, whatever my nephew's beliefs about whether he was obligated to follow those terms, he and I almost certainly did not agree on what those terms were.

You see, the phrase which I believe encapsulates the social contract of modern American society is: "I am my brother's keeper."

Remember from where this phrase derives. It comes from the Bible. Cain had killed his brother Abel, and when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain responded that he did not know, and asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

I have always believed that the question was spiritually rhetorical. Yes, Cain was his brother's keeper, because we are all our brothers' keepers. In God's eyes, we are all responsible for the welfare of our brothers. And, spiritually, the term "brother" is not limited to a familial relationship. All people are our spiritual brothers. In Christian theology, we are all responsible for the welfare of every other human being on the planet, no exceptions.

Imagine how stunned I was when I realized that, probably, my nephew did not believe those were the terms of our social contract. Probably, he believes that the terms of the social contract are "every man for himself." I speculate that this is true because I know something of my nephew's political beliefs, and I cannot account for those beliefs if he believes that he has a societal obligation for the welfare of every other individual in the society. I can only account for those beliefs if he believes he has no societal obligation for the welfare of his fellow countrymen.

I am pretty sure he believes that his favored political policies would result in the improvement of the society and its members generally, though some would, in his belief necessarily, be left behind. I don't think he consciously wants to hurt anyone else. But, I do not believe he feels he personally has any societally imposed obligation to help other members of his society if he doesn't want to.

He and I disagree. Strongly. Profoundly. Fundamentally. And, if I'm right, dangerously.

Henry Ford

"A market is never saturated with a good product, but it is very quickly saturated with a bad one."

Thomas Alva Edison

"You will have many opportunities in life to keep your mouth shut: You should take advantage of every one of them."

(Hey! I just think these are interesting quotations. I didn't say I followed their advice!)

Henry Ford

"Asking 'Who ought to be the boss' is like asking 'Who ought to be the tenor in the quartet?' Obviously, the man who can sing tenor."

Thomas Alva Edison

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Henry Ford

"Our customers can have a model T in any color they like, as long as it's black."

Thomas Alva Edison

"All progress, all success springs from thinking."

Henry Ford

"Higher wages are not an additional cost under proper management. Better-paid workmen are more willing and more efficient. Better material is not necessarily more expensive. On the contrary, it is always more economical."

Thomas Alva Edison

"I shall make the electric light so cheap that only the rich will be able to burn candles."

Henry Ford

"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." [Emphasis added.]

Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 3

This is an exact copy of the response my nephew made to Ms. Warren's speech. It was my intention to copy exactly his words, his spelling, his punctuation, his capitalization, and his grammar. If I have changed any part of it, it was an accident. I have not placed his response in quotation marks, because he uses quotation marks thoughout in a way that would have made it confusing if I had tried to convert them all to internal and external quotation marks.

I agree 100% that any tax cuts or spending of any kind, wars, tax cuts for anyone (since only the top ~50% pay income taxes, that kind of cuts out tax cuts for the poor, doesn't it?), expansions in government programs, etc MUST be paid for by cuts in spending elsewhere or an increase in taxes. She makes the implication that it is conservatives or republicans that are universally responsible for this; this is blantantly untrue and is common knowledge to anyone who has followed politics for the past 20 years.

"Her declaration that the 'medicare drug benefit is 40% more expensive than it needs to be and was a giveaway to the drug companies' is questionable at best. I know of nothing to prove her assertions. I have yet to see a government program that was not a 'giveaway' in some respect. However, to use Rep. Pelosi's logic: For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-fires-back-at-gingrich-over-food-stamps/); surely food stamps correlates to medicare.

Of course, by this logic, all spending should be controlled 100% by the government; then we would have an economy of perpetual motion!

On to the second segment...

Her declaration that the 'rich' owe those who are not rich because they use public services such as transportation or education is disingenuous at best. I will try to address each of her examples in turn.

"Nobody got rich on his own"

A rather empty statement. This means nothing.

"You built a factory out there, good for you..."

Simplifying a terribly complex and risky process. For a company to build a factory, unless the company is afloat with surplus liquid capital, that company will need to get a loan and pay the interest. The company hires another company to build the factory, then finds new workers to staff the built factory, buys the equipment and raw materials (usually another loan) and must spend more money to market the product.

"...you moved your goods to market on the roads that we paid for..."

A misleading statement at best. To understand why this statement (and the statements following) are misguided, you must understand that in the modern market of competitive commerce, the company as an entity is almost always different than the owner or CEO as an entity. Unless this woman is describing the shareholders of that company as 'you' in this phrase, I am not sure who exactly she means.

If she means the company as an entity, then yes, she is correct. The company (that amalgamation of workers, managers, and stockholders) is using the public roads to move goods. Every one of those people that depend upon that company as a means of income depend upon that road. That company (through the progressive income tax system) is already paying for those roads through the personal income taxes of its people (those that fall into the top 50%. The bottom 50% pay nothing but sales tax, which will not necessarily go to the infrastructure). Furthermore, the customers that the company serves (I assume this is who she means by 'we', but 'we' could really mean anyone, as she does not define the term) rely on those goods and buy them. They pay the same taxes to fund the roads as those who make the goods.

"...you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate..."

I missed 'the rest of us' in the last phrase, so I will address it here.

The congresswoman seems to be under either one or both of the following incorrect impressions:

The company entity is not paying taxes to support public education

The company is not an entity unto itself, and is instead the combined servitude of many people for one person, the owner. This owner pays no taxes.

Since the company in her fictional scenario is the proud owner of a factory, it must pay property tax. When it pays for shipping, it pays the gas tax. When it pays the personnel that work inside of it, those personnel pay income tax or payroll tax or both. Those who make more money within the company pay more income tax, unless they donate money, or qualify for another tax deduction.

She also implies that the workers themselves received no personal benefit from the education; as if the education was purely for the benefit of the company. Poppycock.

If she means the primary stockholder of the company, or 'owner' ('owners' if it is a publicly traded company) as I have been using, then she fundamentally does not grasp the concept of an LLC or any corporation in general. Sadly, this lack of comprehension seems to be an epidemic. Perhaps she needs to have 'them' pay for a better education system.

"...you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for..."

Again, whether she means the company as an entity of people (read: taxpayers) or is addressing the primary stockholders, she is ignoring key facts. I will ignore the assertion that she appears to make that the primary stockholders live in their factory. What is this, kindergarten? Someone forgot to tell this congresswoman that teachers and stockholders don't live at school. ;)

The police and fire forces which keep said factory safe are often as not paid for by the same municipal property taxes that are pulled from the company for having its factory in the city. If the factory is outside the city limits, it is most likely outside of the city's fire coverage. I would tell miss Warren that she should start a campaign to get her fictional factory annexed by the city and start collecting municipal property taxes. ;)

In any case, the assumption that miss Warren is making in each statement seems to be the same: there is no company, only a person at the top. There is no unity of purpose in the company, there is only the person(s) at the top, and 'the rest of us'. And according to her, 'the rest of us' are paying for everything, and this secret cabal of people at the top are using it and not paying for it, and when they use it, it benefits 'the rest of us' not at all.

Tell me how this is not class warfare.

And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either.

Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 2

This, to the best of my ability, is a literal transcription of the edited video of Ms. Warren's speech:

"My favorite part of looking at this hole: We got into this hole ... uh ... uh ... one billion doll ... one trillion dollars on tax cuts for the rich under George Bush. We got into this hole two trillion dollars on two wars that we put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay off. And we got into this hole one trillion dollars on a Medicare drug program that a) was not paid for and b) is forty percent more expensive than it needs to be because it was a giveaway to the drug companies.

"So, we just have ... that's just four trillion right there.

"So, part of the way you fix this problem is, like, don't do those things. [Laughter.] No, uh, I'm serious.

"Uh ... I hear all this, you know, 'well, this is class warfare. This is whatever.' No.

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

"You built a factory out there. Good for you.

"But, I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You ... uh ... were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.

"Now, look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

"But, part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 1

Democrat Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, is challenging Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts in his Senate election next year.

Some time ago, she gave a speech at what appears to be a house party, which someone videotaped. The videotaper edited the speech and posted the edited video to You Tube. USA Today published an on-line article about how many people had viewed the You Tube video of Ms. Warren's speech.

My son posted a link to the USA Today article on Facebook.

My nephew, a lieutenant in the United States Army, posted a response to Ms. Warren's speech in response to my son's Facebook posting.

Such is how the internet works these days, I suppose.

I want to respond to my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech, but they are so lengthy and Facebook is so cumbersome when used for lengthy discussion, that I decided to move it all here to A Moment's Pause.

This will occur in four parts. This is the first part, where I try to explain what I'm doing.

The second part will be the edited portion of Ms. Warren's speech, to which the USA Today article referred and, thus, the version of the speech to which my nephew was referring when he made his extensive comments. I have transcribed Ms. Warren's words from the video. I have tried to transcribe them literally.

The third part will be my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech. Those are taken directly and unedited from his Facebook response to my son's posting.

The fourth part will be my response to my nephew's comments.

The Most Important Thing

In a recent campaign speech, Governor Rick Perry, a Texas Republican, told his audience that the most important thing they had to do was defeat Barrack Obama in the next election.

Really? The most important thing?

More important than winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

More important than bringing the troops home from those countries?

More important than balancing the federal budget?

More important than reducing the federal deficit?

More important than protecting the financial good faith of the United States?

More important than reducing the unemployment rate?

More important than repairing our failing infrastructure?

More important than closing Guantanamo?

More important than protecting the United States from another terrorist attack?

If that's true, if he really believes what he said, then he would, naturally, not want to do any of those things while Obama is President, because, if any of those things happened, then it would be more likely, even if just a little, that President Obama would be re-elected, and Rick Perry thinks the most important thing is to keep President Obama from being re-elected.

In other words, the most important thing is to defeat President Obama, not to improve the welfare of the United States. So, it's good when bad things happen to the United States during President Obama's administration, because that makes it easier to do the most important thing.

If that's true, that would explain an awful lot of the things the Republicans in Congress have been doing lately.

So, once again, we are left with some options to explain Governor Perry's words.

1. He didn't really mean it, but he just didn't think about the implications of what he was saying before he said it.

2. He didn't really mean it, and he knew he didn't really mean it when he said it, which makes him a liar.

3. He did really mean it, and he thinks defeating President Obama really is more important than anything else that would be good for the United States.

I know what I think. Frankly, I think it's more than a little interesting that every time Rick Perry says something outrageous, one of the options to explain it - the common option in every case - is that Rick Perry is a liar.

But, whichever option one believes - he speaks without considering the implications of his words, he lies, or he really doesn't want the United States and, by extension, average Americans, to do well during President Obama's term - anyone deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President will have to decide if he or she is comfortable having a President like that.

On the other hand, if we don't do something about global climate change, and do it fast, it won't really matter who is President.

Insignificant Washington

On August 13, in his speach announcing that he was running for President of the United States, Republican Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, said that if he were elected President, he would work "to make Washington, D.C., as insignificant in our lives as possible."

Now, he wants the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help deal with the wildfires currently burning in Texas, especially the one burning in Bastrop County, and wants United States Army resources from Fort Hood to help out as well.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Washington would be less significant in the lives of the fire victims if the federal disaster agency and the federal military were not involved.

Almost all of the folks who have lost their homes to these wildfires are going to need loans to rebuild. Federal loans are some of the most beneficial for people involved in natural disasters. I wonder, if Rick Perry were President, would he want the federal government to make those loans, or would he tell the wildfire victims in Texas that it was a good thing for them to have "Washington, D.C., as insignificant in [their] lives as possible."

"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth

Rick Perry and his "Pro-Life" Decision

On February 2, 2007, Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, signed an executive order requiring all girls entering the sixth grade in Texas to be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus. The only way to avoid getting your daughter vaccinated against this virus was if the parent filed a form "opting out."

The human papilloma virus is sexually transmitted and causes about 70% of all cervical cancers.

Some Texas lawmakers said vaccinating girls against the human papilloma virus would encourage girls to be sexually promiscuous.

Governor Perry had some interesting responses to his legislative detractors. He said, "Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than the hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," and "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it, claiming it would encourage smoking?"

But, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation reversing Governor Perry's executive order. He did not have the votes to keep his veto from being overriden, so he allowed the legislation to become law without his signature.

From then until he announced that he was running for President of the United States, Governor Perry staunchly defended his decision to issue the executive order requiring all sixth grade girls in the State of Texas to be vaccinated for HPV.

Among other things, he said these:

On May 9, 2007, at a news conference where he was accompanied by women who had had cervical cancer, including one who contracted the HPV from her rapist, he said, "In the next year, more than a thousand women will likely be diagnosed with this insidious yet mostly preventable disease. I challenge legislators to look these women in the eye and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and grandaughters, but we didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric.'"

In January 2010, when his gubernatorial election opponent, Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison raised the issue in a debate, he said, when asked if his decision to issue the executive order had been a mistake: "No, sir, not from my position. I stand proudly by my pro-life position."

When asked about it in a September 2010 interview, he said, "Let me tell you why it wasn't a bad idea. ... I knew I was going to take a political hit. ... At the end of the day, I did what was right from my perspective, and I did something that saved people's lives and, you know, that's a big deal."

He's right. It is a big deal. So, what will he do as President? Take the political hit to save people's lives?

Well, here's what he said after announcing that he was running for President when he was asked about his decision to issue the executive order: "I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't do my research well enough ... ," and "That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on."

So, what happened to "I stand proudly by my pro-life position"? What happened to accusing opposing legislators of not having the political gumption to do the right thing and save women's lives when we can?

All that changed in less than a year. Now it's a "mistake."

Now, there are a few options. The first option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he really meant it and ... now ... he's caved in and he's taking a politically expedient position because he wants to be President.

Another option is that when he was taking his righteous stand in favor of vaccinating girls for HPV and accusing his opponents of not having enough gumption to do the right thing, he didn't mean it and he was lying.

Or, finally, he might have meant it then, and be telling the truth now: he didn't do enough research before issuing an executive order that would affect tens of thousands of girls and their families.

I have my suspicions about which option is correct, but they are only suspicions. I can't know whether I'm right or not.

Nonetheless, anyone who is deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President of the United States will have to decide if any of those options is alright with them.

Do they want a President who changes his positions based on political expediency? Or do they want a President who lies? Of do they want a President who makes decisions affecting tens of thousands of people without sufficiently researching them?

Because, if you vote for Rick Perry, you'll be voting for a man for President who does at least one of those things.

On the other hand, we can ignore global climate change and in a few years it won't really matter who is President of the United States.

So, Governor Perry Is Running for President

Recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that he was running for President of the United States.

Only a few months before, he said, many times, that he was not running for President, didn't want to run for President, wasn't planning to run for President, and wasn't thinking about running for President.

Now, such statements made in some general way are pretty common. However, Governor Perry's statements were unambiguous and unequivocal. I listened carefully, trying to see if the Governor had left himself some wiggle room in case he later ran for President. There wasn't any.

I even discussed the statements with some of my friends. We all agreed that there really wasn't any wiggle room in his statements. Yet, his behavior was definitely that of someone running for some national office. The best would could come up with was that he was angling to be the Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket.

But, now he's officially running. What happened?

Governor Perry says that two things happened. First, his wife asked him to reconsider. Second, he heard the call of duty.

Maybe so. Or, maybe not. There is no way I can know. I know what I think, but I can't know.

However, there are a couple of possibilities. The first possibility is that at least once when he said he was not going to run for President, he secretly knew that he was. That makes him a liar.

The second possibility is that every time he said he was not going to run for President, he meant it and later changed his mind. That means he didn't keep his word and (not "or"), perhaps, wasn't very careful about what he said in the first place.

Those considering whether to vote for him for President may be comfortable with either one or both of those possibilities, but before casting a vote for Rick Perry to be President of the United States, the voter ought to decide if he or she is comfortable voting for a man for that position who is either a liar or does not keep his word.

Dishonoring your Debts Is Called Dishonoring for a Reason

Imagine a business owner who sits down and works out a budget for his business for the next year, but works out that budget so that he will spend more than he makes. He realizes this, and knows he will have to borrow money to pay for everything in his budget.

Now, in that budget there are different types of things. One is the wages of his employees. Another is the cost of buying the things he needs to run his business - paper, cars, steel, whatever. Another is the payments on loans he's already taken out in previous years.

Being aware of this, he makes a plan to get the money he needs to pay all of his budgeted expenses by borrowing it when the time comes that he needs the extra funds. For whatever reason, he decides this is the best way to run his business for the next year.

But, everyone knows about this budget that will need a new loan to fully fund - his employees, his suppliers, his bank. One by one, each of them comes to him and asks him about his plan to pay for his budgeted expenses for the next year.

The employees come, and they say, "Boss, it doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay us our wages under this plan. What are you planning to do about this?" And the man tells them, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so when your wages come due, I'll be able to pay them. Just keep on working. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

The suppliers come to him, and they say, "Sir, it doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay us for the goods we supply to your business under this plan. Should we keep supplying you and trust you to pay, or should we demand cash in advance?" The man looks them all in the eyes and says, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so when it comes time to pay you for the things you've furnished me for my business, I'll be able to pay you. Just keep on sending the supplies. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

His banker comes to him, and says, "It doesn't look like you're going to have enough money to pay your loan we made you under this plan. Should we renew that loan, or make you pay it all now, to be sure we get our money?" And he tells his banker, "Don't worry. I'm going to take out a new loan, so I'll be able to pay you back when my debt to you comes due. I have a plan. You will recall that I've done this every year when it was time to pay you. You can trust me. I've never failed to pay my debts."

But, then, when the time comes when he doesn't have enough money to pay his employees for the work they've already done for him, or his suppliers for the goods they've already furnished him, or his bank for the money it already loaned him, he thinks, "Now that I'm right down to it, I don't think this was such a good plan. It seems to me that I should have adopted a budget for my business that was balanced, and didn't require me to borrow any more money. Yes, I should have done that a long time ago. Well, I'm just going to change my plan, and I'm not going to get that new loan that I promised I'd get, the promise I made to my employees who worked for me, to my suppliers who provided their goods to me, to my bank which loaned me money to run my business in the past. I'm just going to break that promise."

So, he doesn't get the loan. He doesn't pay his employees for the work they've done. He doesn't pay his suppliers for the things they've sold him. And he doesn't pay his bank the money he owes them. This is not because he can't pay them, because he could take out that new loan he promised them all he'd take out. This is not because he doesn't owe them all fair and square, because they all have valid claims to be paid. Honest claims. It is just because he changed his mind.

They relied on his word, and he broke it.

That's exactly what the Congress of the United States is threatening to do. Break our promises. We promised we'd pay, and they're about to break our promise. We, the People. Remember us?

I have often said that people get the government they deserve. We elected these folks who are about to dishonor our debt, about to break our promise. Unfortunately, not only will they dishonor the debt of the United States, they will dishonor the United States of America. They will dishonor themselves. And they will dishonor us.

But, maybe we deserve it.

Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, the dishonoring of the United States is going to be a tiny thing in the course of human affairs, which are likely to have a very short future anyway.

Sad for Mitch McConnell

Yesterday I wrote an article praising Senator Mitch McConnell for a tremendous compromise idea he came up with regarding raising the United States' debt ceiling. He deserves praise for finding a way out of the dead end that the President and Congress were in.

Today, I hear that he is "selling" the idea to his fellow Republicans as something they need to do to keep President Obama from being re-elected, rather than as something they need to do in the best interests of the American people and the world.

How sad.

Praise for Mitch McConnell

Yesterday, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did something responsible, and he deserves a great deal of praise for doing it.

He proposed a compromise in the negotiations for raising the United States' debt ceiling that will work.

As I understand it, the Congress would pass legislation that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative, without the approval of Congress. He would have to do it in steps, and there are details to those steps, but they really aren't relevant to the core of the idea proposed by Senator McConnell.

However, to raise the debt ceiling at any of the steps, the President would have to notify Congress of his intention to do so and propose specific budget cuts equal to the amount by which the debt ceiling would be raised. The Congress would then have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" to take away the President's authority to increase the debt ceiling at that step. However, the President could veto the Congress' resolution, and unless the Congress could get two-thirds of each house to override the President's veto, the President could raise the debt ceiling on his own initiative.

Later, at the time the Congress approves the budget, they could enact the President's proposed budget cuts, or some of them, or none of them, or different ones.

It is an elegant and statesmanlike compromise.

If the President thinks the debt ceiling should be raised, he can do it, no strings attached, as it ought to be, but he takes full responsibility for doing it and he has to put our money where his mouth is and propose budget cuts in an equal amount.

If the Congress thinks the debt ceiling should not be raised, they can vote against it, but they can't stop it unless they can get two out of every three of their colleagues to vote with them.

Later, the Congress can debate spending when spending out to be debated - when the budget is adopted. If they think we shouldn't be borrowing so much money, they can vote to stop spending so much money.

And, if the Congress takes the budget cuts the President proposed when he raised the debt ceiling, he can't complain, because they were the budget cuts he proposed. If they don't - either because they made different budget cuts or weren't willing to cut as much as he proposed - they have only themselves to blame. And, by the way, the voters also have them to blame, if they want to blame someone.

No one can really keep the other from doing what they think is right, and voters can judge each elected official by what they do, not by what they were strong-armed into doing by the other side.

If there are enough adults in the room, it should work. If there are enough adults in the room.

Of course, if we don't do something to control global climate change, and soon, the debt ceiling crisis will look like a game of Trivial Pursuit, no matter how it comes out. None of this will really matter.

Now the Democrats

A few weeks ago, I criticized the Republicans in Congress for predicating a vote to increase the United States' debt limit on an agreement to cut spending. I said then and I say now, even the prospect of defaulting on our debt is too grave to play games with.

Now, the Democrats have said they won't vote to increase the debt limit unless the Republicans agree to increase taxes (or decrease tax spending or enhance revenue or whatever it's called these days). That's just as bad!

Someone needs to step up to the plate and say, "We can't play this game. We all need to vote for a clean, straight up increase in the debt ceiling without any deals or restrictions. This is too important. Important to our nation, important to its people, and important to the world."

Are there really no patriots left?

Of course, if we don't do something about global climate change, and fast, none of it will matter anyway. It may already be too late.

Shame!

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated a bill to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Failure to raise the debt ceiling will mean that the United States will default on its debt. That would be devastating for not only the U.S. economy, but the world's economy. Even the potential that the United States might default on its debt can injure the United States financially in major ways. The United States never defaults on its debt. That's why United States Treasury Bills are the safest investment in the world.

While there were both Republicans and Democrats voting against the bill, the Republicans went on record saying that the defeat of the bill was intended to send a message to President Obama that the Republicans in the House will not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama and the Democrats agree to significant cuts in the current federal budget.

Unfortunately, that also sends the same message to every investor in the world - all those who purchase the debt of the United States government. If nothing else, that raises the cost of borrowing money for the United States, which runs up the deficit even higher, which isn't good. It is supposedly the thing the Republicans are most concerned about, but obviously they aren't.

In any event, the Republicans are playing chicken with the world economy. They know better.

The U.S. Congress should pass a clean bill raising the federal debt ceiling, so all the world will know that we won't, under any circumstances, default on our debt. Then they can argue about how much to cut the budget.

Even if the Republicans and Democrats can't agree on how much to cut the federal budget, or whether to cut it at all, the world needs to know, beyond any doubt, that we won't default on our debt. If you buy a U.S. government security, you're going to get paid. No matter what.

The phrase "as sound as a dollar" didn't become trite for no reason and it is crucial that it remain true.

Shame on the U.S. House of Representatives for risking the well-being of everyone in the world! Because that's what they're doing. Shame on them!

Supporting President Obama

This spring, President Obama announced that he would run for re-election as President of the United States. It wasn't exactly a huge surprise, but now it's official.

I want to support President Obama in his re-election bid, but I have one question for him. I'll put it here, since I don't think he'll read my e-mail.

"Mr. President, I'd like to support you in your re-election for President, but I have a problem. You see, I want to be truthful, so when my friends ask me, I'll have to tell them the truth about why I support you. So, before I announce my support for your re-election, I want to give you the chance to decline my support, since I'm not sure how many votes it will actually get you when I tell my friends I'm supporting you because you aren't as bad as the Republicans."

Are Americans' Taxes Too High?

According to USA Today, "Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958 ... .

"The total tax burden - for all federal, state and local taxes - dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter [of 2011] ... .

"By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year."

Maybe 23.6% is too high. I don't think so, not compared with all I get for those taxes, but maybe it is. Nonetheless, I was surprised to learn that it was so low. I was particularly surprised to learn that it was so low by comparison to how high it had been in previous decades.

If one listens to the "debate" in the public market place of ideas, one would conclude that the share of our incomes being taken for taxes was higher than it had ever been. Certainly the tax protesters would have one believe that, and I suspect that they believe it themselves. I do not remember one time when anyone has made it clear that our tax rate as a percentage of our incomes is lower than it has been in decades.

I think that's important to know when trying to decide whether we should begin to balance the federal budget by raising taxes, cutting services for the poor and powerless, or a combination of the two.

It is really important to make sure we are speaking truth to ourselves in this public market place of ideas. Really important.

Public Employees' Benefits

This is personal.

This week I read about a survey in which a majority of Californians believe that public employees in California should give up some of their retirement benefits to help balance the state budget.

I don't know about California. I don't know how their public employee benefits are structured or how generous (or not so) the retirement plan(s) for public employees is in California.

But, I know about Travis County, Texas.

I have been an employee of the Travis County Attorney's Office for over 29 years. For many years, I have been the Executive Assistant Travis County Attorney, one of the two lawyers who report directly to the County Attorney. I supervise the civil (as opposed to the criminal prosecution) side of our office. It is the equivalent of being a senior partner in a law firm of 75 or so lawyers.

During my career working for the Travis County Attorney, I have been well- and fairly-paid. I have no complaints about the salary I've received. But, it has been a small fraction of the salary I would have received in an equivalent position in private practice, even though, over the years, the lawyers we have faced, both in transactional negotiations and in litigation, have been the senior partners of major law firms, and we've done pretty well.

This fractional salary fact is and has been true for most, if not all Travis County employees. Virtually all of us make less than our private-industry counterparts and always have, even though we do the same work that they do.

Over those years, I have heard, over and over, from elected officials and from members of the public, that it was fair to pay us, the county employees, less than our private-industry counterparts because (1) we had more job security and (2) we got such generous benefit packages, including our retirement plan.

And there is some truth to that, though not as much as I suspect people think. Our benefit packages are not all that much more generous than many in private industry, and not as generous as some in private industry. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.

In particular, this has been said during times of an expanding economy when private-industry salaries were rising fast and far out-pacing our salaries as county employees. "You don't get paid as much because you get such good benefits."

So, for many years, the public servants of Travis County have received less for our work than our private counterparts with the promise that it would even out when we retired.

Now you want to reduce our retirement?

I'm sorry. I worked for that retirement. It's been part of what I've been promised - by my fellow citizens - if I would continue to work on their behalf in public service. I've sacrificed countless nights and weekends for that retirement. I've watched my private-practice counterparts live in huge houses and drive expensive cars and take fancy vacations to ski resorts in Colorado and trips to Europe, none of which I could afford. And the reason given to me for why I should feel okay that I wasn't able to afford what they had - even though I was facing them in the courtroom and beating them - was always that I had better benefits than they did.

Now you want to reduce our retirement?

Shame on you! Keep your promises! We've kept ours! Pay us what you agreed to pay us when we were doing your work for you!

I told you this was personal.

The Coporate Tax Rate

In a previous article, I discussed the fact that an "expert" averred in an article published in the Austin American-Statesman that the United States had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and that, in fact, this was not true. There were, in fact, at least six other countries with higher corporate tax rates than the United States.

At the time, I refused to discuss whether the U.S. corporate tax rate was too high. I wanted to stay on the point that this "expert" had said something which wasn't true, and which he almost surely knew wasn't true, and that the American-Statesman had published his article without the most rudimentary checking of his "facts," thereby putting and perhaps perpetuating a falsehood into the public discourse about U.S. corporate tax rates.

Now I want to talk about whether U.S. corporate tax rates are "too high."

The U.S. corporate tax rate is actually a range, depending on the income level of the corporation paying the taxes. That range is from 15% to 39%. Is that too high?

I don't know that I'm qualified to answer that question, but I have an opinion. That opinion is informed, at least in part, by this fact: According to NPR, the actual rate of tax paid by corporations in the United States on average is between 12 and 13%.

I need to say that again: the average rate of tax actually paid by corporations in the United States is between 12 and 13%.

That doesn't seem too high to me. Especially when corporations are making record profits and that's lower than the rate of taxes I pay. A lot lower.

So, in addition to making a false statement about U.S. corporate tax rates compared to other nations corporate tax rates, the "expert's" statement was really misleading. Regardless of what the stated corporate tax rate is, the actual rate of taxes paid by corporations in the United States falls below the lowest rate in the stated range of corporate taxes.

Why? I am not suggesting that U.S. corporations are cheating on their taxes, though a number of them have plead guilty to that crime over the years. Maybe they're cheating, maybe they're not. I tend to think most of them aren't.

They pay an average rate lower than the lowest rate of the stated range because of all the deductions, exemptions, and credits of which they may legally avail themselves in the U.S. tax code. So, it is actually our tax law that allows them to pay such a low rate.

My suggestion is that, when we are evaluating whether corporations pay too much in taxes in the United States, that we look at what they actually pay under our tax law, not what they might pay if their accountants were stupid and they paid more than the law requires them to pay.

Twelve to 13% doesn't seem too high to me.

CORRECTION!

In these articles, one of my recurring themes has been the need to speak the truth to each other.

Unfortunately, I violated that principle in my previous article on the Federal Debt Ceiling.

I said that the United States had had a federal debt ever since Secretary of the Treasury Alexamder Hamilton. That statement, it turns out, is not true.

In 1835, under President Andrew Jackson, the United States fully paid its national debt. The very next year, the national economy went into recession, the federal government borrowed money again, and we have had a national debt ever since.

So, the truth is that since President George Washington authorized his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, to incur debt in the name of the United States, we have had a national debt ever since, except in the year 1835, when, for less than one year, we were national-debt free.

The Federal Debt Ceiling

In the middle of May, the federal government will reach its Congressionally authorized debt ceiling. Unless the Congress increases the debt ceiling, the federal government will be unable to pay its debts. The United States will default on its financial obligations.

Some members of Congress are saying that they will not vote to increase the federal debt ceiling. The problem is, there may be enough members of Congress making this threat to actually prevent the federal debt ceiling from being raised.

This is so irresponsible it approaches madness. If those who are threatening to keep the federal debt ceiling at its current level, thereby assuring that the United States will default on its financial obligations, are not insane, then they are diabolical. I don't use that word lightly, nor do I use it without understanding its literal meaning.

The issue of whether the United States government would have debt was fought out over 200 years ago, between Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, our first Secretary of State and the founder of the original Republican party. The dispute was referreed by none other than George Washington, our first President.

Secretary Hamilton won, and the United States has had a federal debt ever since.

But, we've never defaulted on the payments due on that debt. Never. Hence the saying, "sound as a dollar." That saying did not become common by accident. It became common because when someone owned a financial obligation of the United States of America, whether that be a treasury bond or a dollar bill, they could be certain that financial obligation would be honored.

Our national financial system is based on this concept: the United States will never default on its financial obligations. That's why a treasury bond is considered the standard by which every other financial investment is measured. A treasury bond has been an investment in which there has never been any risk. Therefore, if an alternative investment couldn't net an investor at least as much as a treasury bond, it was clearly unsound.

But, more than that, the world's financial system is based on the concept that the United States will never default on its financial obligations. Everyone in the world trusts the United States to pay its debts, and investment decisions in every corner of the globe have been made on that assumption. A previously safe assumption.

However, now it is no longer safe.

And just the fact that it is not a safe assumption - entirely aside from whether we actually default on our debt - is already causing damage in the financial world, which will eventually spill over and affect every man, woman, and child in the world negatively. Some will be hurt much worse than others.

Just making people think we might not pay our debts, just letting people think we might not pay our debts, has terrible consequences. Already, major banks are developing contingency plans for how they stay in business - not how they continue to make a profit, how they stay in business - if the debt ceiling is not raised. That costs money. Real money. Out of the real pockets of real people.

If a member of Congress wants to control or reduce the federal debt, the way to do that is by controlling the federal budget. Not by threatening to default on our financial obligations. Unless, of course, your real objective is to destroy the federal government or, even more diabolical, the United States of America.

I have already heard it said in defense of the threats to vote against raising the federal debt ceiling that "Senator Obama did it."

I have two responses to that defense.

First, it was wrong for Senator Obama to do it. That doesn't make it right now. There was a difference when Senator Obama voted against raising the federal debt ceiling. There was no way there were going to be enough votes against raising the debt ceiling to actually defeat the bill. So, no one anywhere actually considered that there was any chance the United States would default on its financial obligations. But, that didn't make it right for Senator Obama to vote against it. It was wrong. And the fact that it provides an excuse - no matter how flimsy - for madmen to justify their similar votes now is just one reason why it was wrong. (See my previous articles where I refer to the Law of Unintended Consequences.)

My second response is: Do the people who are threatening a default of the United States' financial obligation really want to gauge the appropriateness of their behavior by Senator Obama's actions? Really? "It's okay for me to do it because Obama did it"? Really?

Peaceful Protest

And so I hear that this morning the state security forces moved to clear peaceful protesters from the public square in the capital of Wisconsin.

Oh! I'm sorry. I'm getting my stories slightly confused.

And so I hear that this morning the state security forces moved to clear peaceful protesters from the public areas of the capitol building in the capital of Wisconsin.

The Revolution

A member of the United States Congress is shot through the head by an armed citizen of the United States.

A federal judge, shot dead. A U.S. Congressional aid. Dead. Mothers, grandmothers, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers. Dead. A nine-year-old girl lying dead in a pool of her own blood. Our fellow human beings' bodies strewn about like so many bloody, ripped-up rag dolls. Many others wounded, bleeding, bodies torn apart by bullets. Our neighbors.

Second Amendment remedies indeed.

Perhaps this was the work of a mad man. Whether it was or not, if you are one of those who have been toying with, talking about, or even thinking about revolting against or seceding from the United States, this mad man has painted a picture for you, a picture which you should burn into your brain and keep there.

This is what your revolution looks like.

Before you decide to start your revolution, think about this picture and decide very carefully if your revolution is really worth it. Because, once you start, you can't turn back.

And, when you revolt, if you do, against my country, against my government, against my flag, against the nation I love, I will participate. I will fight. But, it won't be on your side. I will fight you in defense of my country. So, don't imagine that those dead and wounded men, women, and children will only be the bodies of your imagined enemies. Among them will be your women and children. Your friends. Your loved ones.

Second Amendment remedies? Really? Are you serious? Have you really thought about what you're saying?

I hope so.