The "Sequester"

I'm not sure why they call it the "sequester," but the "sequester" is an across-the-board set of federal budget cuts set to take effect on March 1.

There is a lot of finger-pointing and blaming and cross-accusation about the "sequester," making it pretty hard to know exactly what it is and what's going on, but here are a few things about the "sequester" that seem to be true and undisputed.

1.  It's real.

These are real budget cuts, they are really across-the-board, and they are really going to take effect.  Apparently, the law is written in such a way that the executive branch has no discretion to cut spending where it chooses, but must make cuts pro-rata across all the departments.

2.  It's bad.

Except for a tiny group whose objective seems to be to destroy the federal government, everyone agrees that the "sequester" will be bad for America.  There is substantial dispute about how bad it will be, from those who say "It won't be that bad" to those who say "It will be a disaster."  Some say that it would be good to cut the federal budget in the total amount of the "sequester," but even they agree that across-the-board cuts, with no judgement as to what programs get cut and in what amounts to accomplish the total, is bad.  But, as far as I can tell, no sensible person claims that it will be good.  Everyone agrees that, to some extent, it will be bad for America.

3.  It's manufactured.

The Congress of the United States, in a law signed by the President of the United States, created the "sequester."  It is not the necessary result of forces beyond our control.  It is self-inflicted.  This does not mean that it isn't real.  It is very real.  But, it is manufactured.  We created it.

4.  It could easily be avoided.

All the Congress has to do is pass a bill repealing the "sequester" and the President sign that law and this thing that is real and admitted by virtually everyone as bad will simply disappear.  There is nothing that is unavoidable about it.

But, there do not seem to be any plans, at least no public plans, to avoid the "sequester."

So, it appears that the Democrats and the Republicans are playing a game of chicken.  They are trying to see who will swerve out of the way first as they drive headlong into each other.  And, from all appearances, both have decided it won't be them.  Which will result in a crash.

Unfortunately, it won't be the Congressmen or the President, it won't be the Democratic leadership of the nation or the Republican leadership of the nation, who are hurt the worst.  It will be the average American.  Vital services - services that almost everyone agrees are necessary - will be cut.  Programs considered extremely important by average Republican Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other.  Programs considered extremely important by average Democratic Americans will be cut, programs they would never cut if given the choice of cutting that program or some other.  And the economy will be hurt, impacting virtually everyone.  No one knows how much the economy will suffer, but virtually everyone agrees there will be some damage to the economy, and some pretty smart people think it will be disastrous to the economy.

Nonetheless, it appears that our leaders are going to let it happen, even though they know it is bad.

In case it wasn't obvious, here's what I think ought to happen:  the Congress should pass a law and the President should sign that law repealing the law by which our Congress and our President created this real, bad, yet manufactured event.  Then, how much, if any, and where, we cut the federal budget should be fought out in the process of adopting a federal budget.  And we should adopt a budget, not just pass continuing resolutions and never adopt a budget.  If someone has the votes to make a cut, then so be it.  If they don't, then they need to stop trying to sabotage America with these manufactured crises.

Who should we hold responsible?  We should hold responsible every U.S. Representative and every U.S. Senator who does not either file a bill or support a bill filed by someone else to repeal the "sequester."  If they pass such a bill, we should hold the President responsible if he doesn't immediately sign it.

Enough of this craziness.

But, speaking of craziness, none of this will make a spit worth of difference in the long run if we don't do something about global climate change.  If we don't deal with that problem, the effects of the "sequester," no matter how bad, are going to seem like a holiday.

The Debt Ceiling

Imagine a couple who sit down and work out a budget for their family expenses.  They look over it when they're done, and the wife says to the husband, "You know, this budget for expenses is more than our income."  The husband says, "I know."  The wife asks, "So, how are we going to pay for this budget, when it allows us to spend more than we make?"  The husband says, "We'll have to go into debt."  "You mean, borrow money so we can pay for the things in this budget?"  "Yes," the husband responds.  "Exactly.  We'll have to borrow money."  "So, you know that means our creditors will expect us to pay them back, right?"  "Yes, I know that."  "And you know they'll be right in expecting us to pay them.  If we borrow money from them, they have the right to be paid back.  You know that, right?"  "Yes, I know that."  "And you agree to this budget?"  "Yes, I do," says the husband.  "Okay, so do I," says the wife.

So, the wife goes out and spends the money called for in the budget they both agreed to.  Of course, to spend that money, she has to incur debts.  She runs up their credit card, but she doesn't spend a dime that isn't in their budget.

Then the credit card bill arrives and it's for $100, and the husband says, "I don't want you to pay that $100 to the credit card company.  I don't agree to you paying it."

"Wait!" she exclaims.  "Wait!  You agreed to our budget!  We both did!  And you knew we would have to incur debt to pay for that budget!  Now you don't want to pay that debt?"

"Well," he says, "I agreed that you could spend $100 more than we made in income, and I agreed that you could charge it to our credit card, but I never agreed to pay the credit card company."

"Are you serious?" she asks incredulously.  "Are you really making that argument that you agreed we would incur a debt, but you never agreed to pay it, and now you aren't going to agree to pay it?  Really?"

"Yes, that's exactly the argument I'm making.  I agreed to incur the debt, but I never agreed to pay the debt."

"But, you know this will ruin our credit rating, right?"

"Yes, I know that."

"And you know, no one will ever be willing to trust us again, because we don't keep our word, right?

"Yes, I know that, too."

"But, you still don't want to pay the debt that you agreed we should incur?" asks the wife.

"That's right," responds the husband with a straight face.

That would be weird, wouldn't it?  Few people, if anyone, would think that the husband was being honest, or fair, or trustworthy, if he really did that.

But, that's exactly what Congress is doing if it refuses to raise the debt ceiling so that the executive branch can pay the debts that Congress already agreed the executive branch could incur when the Congress passed the budget.

Dishonest, unfair, and untrustworthy.

An Apology

Some time ago (my last post here, which has since been deleted), I wrote an article here which was insulting to my sister.

There are several reasons I wrote it, but there is no excuse for it.

It has been deleted.

I apologize.

A Tax for not Doing Something

So.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the "mandate" - the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or pays a penalty for not doing so - is actually a tax.  A tax on everyone who does not have health insurance.  Therefore, on those who do not have health insurance provided for them in some way, such as by their employer, a tax imposed for not doing something, i.e., not buying health insurance.

Republicans would have us believe that this "tax for not doing something" is unprecendented.  (Many of them, by the way, would also have us believe that this "tax" is the largest tax increase ever in the United States, the world, and, even - I'm not kidding - the universe.  All those assertions are easily shown to be not true, by the way.  But, when have the Republicans let truth get in the way of a good sound bite?)

However, it turns out that even the assertion that "a 'tax for not doing something' is unprecendented" is just ... well ... wrong.

We have long had taxes imposed on us for not doing things.

I, for instance, am taxed for not having minor children.  I am taxed for not getting married.  I'm even taxed for not giving enough to my church.

Yes, each of those is, in fact, a tax benefit for those who do those things, not a direct tax on me.  If you have minor children, you get a tax deduction.  If you are married, you get a lower tax rate.  If you give enough to your church, you can take a tax deduction for part of your gift.

But, whenever someone avails him or herself of the tax benefit for doing something which I did not do, I, and everyone else who doesn't do those things, must pay more taxes to make up the difference.  The effect is the same:  a tax paid because you don't do something.

The truth is that taxes have always been used as a tool to encourage (or coerce, depending on your point of view) people to do things which the government wants them to do, whether that's having children, getting married, giving to charities, drilling for oil, producing mohair, or investing your money.

To suggest that this tax, which is designed to motivate people to buy health insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay for the uninsured's health care, is something unique or new or unprecedented is just more ... well ... nonsense.

I Don't Know

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with the American government keeping an American citizen isolated, without contact with family or attorneys, in a military prison, for years, without ever being charged with a crime.

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with the idea of trying people who we claim are our military enemies for crimes that didn't exist at the time they were alleged to have committed them in courts that didn't exist at the time their alleged crimes were committed.

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with forcing someone to testify against themselves by torturing them.

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with keeping anyone in jail forever without ever charging them with any crime.

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with other Americans snatching people off the streets of their countries and secretly delivering them to other countries so that they can be tortured.

I don't know why Americans would ever be okay with America knowingly and intentionally violating the Geneva Conventions.

I don't know why Americans who claim to worship the greatest healer the world has ever known would be against providing health care for all Americans.

I don't know why an American would answer the question "What do we say to this poor sick woman who doesn't have health care" by screaming, "Let her die!"

I don't know why Americans would cheer when someone says to a poor, sick American woman who has no health care, "Let her die!"

I don't know why Americans would blame someone for failing to do something that they kept him from doing.

I don't know why Americans would be okay with capital unions but be against labor unions.

I don't know why Americans have become the people they have become.

And I am afraid.

"The Hunger Games"

Several weeks ago, the Austin American-Statesman published a commentary by Ashley Sanchez, a "regular contributor" to the Statesman, entitled "'Hunger Games' spurs teens to live virtuously."

From her previous "regular contributions" I deduce that Ms. Sanchez considers herself to be deeply religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, and Pro-Life.  So it was with double concern that I read Ms. Sanchez' "contribution" to the public discourse about "The Hunger Games."

Ms. Sanchez begins her "contribution" by describing how she and her husband were riding bikes when they came across a "girl" with a bow and arrow.  When Ms. Sanchez' husband asked her if she was "playing 'The Hunger Games,'" the girl said she was.  Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]here could be worse influences."  Indeed, there could be.  But, the implication of Ms. Sanchez "contribution," starting with the headline, is that somehow "The Hunger Games" is a good influence on our children.

I strongly disagree.

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do not think of myself as at all religious, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, or Pro-Life, although I do think of myself as decent, conservative, and pro-life.  As such, I would defend to my own death anyone's right to write or make a movie with the story-line of "The Hunger Games."  I have seen the movie and I thought it was very good.  It had me riveted to my seat.  As a piece of story-telling drama it was among the best I've ever seen.

But, it was not a good message for our children.  In fact, it was exactly the wrong message for our children.

Ms. Sanchez opines that "[t]he story shows how good can maintain its goodness when evil tries to corrupt it."  On the contrary, the story shows how easy it is to cooperate with evil and become a part of that evil, even while despising that evil and thinking that you are not part of that evil, because you are afraid to resist evil.

And, frankly, I am mystified at how those who most loudly decry compromise in our government as "compromising with evil" seem to be the ones who are the least troubled by "The Hunger Games."

Let us think through the story.

First, for those who have not seen it, the premise is that three-quarters of a century ago a tyrannical government crushed a popular rebellion.  Now, the descendants of those who revolted live in twelve districts.  Each year the government requires that each of the twelve districts send two of their children, a boy and a girl, to participate in "the Hunger Games" in the capital.  During the Hunger Games, the 24 children are required to fight each other to the death, until there is only one left.  The survivor gets to go home to his or her district, apparently a hero.

So, each year, two "tributes" - children - are chosen from each district in a ceremony.  These two children will be sent off to the capital to fight and almost surely die (there is a one in twenty-four chance that the child will survive, so 23 of the children will die and at the very best at least one of the children from any given district will be killed by other children).

But, here's the first compromise with evil.  Instead of resisting this great evil, instead of standing up to the government and saying "we will not voluntarily send our children off to kill each other," the parents docilely dress their children in their Sunday best and send them to the selection ceremony where two of them are chosen at random to go kill other children and be killed by other children.  The parents don't even try to hide their children, much less fight to save them.  They just surrender them up.  Why?  In the hope that it won't be their child who is chosen.  But, that means that it will be your friends' child or your neighbor's child.  But, if you actively resist, you will almost surely be killed yourself and your child probably killed, too.  The best chance of skating by is to cooperate with evil and hope it falls on someone else.

A good message for our children?  The message that your parents will not protect you?  A message that, our of fear, your parents will cooperate with evil and just hope it's not you who gets killed?  I don't think so.

So, then two children are chosen.  When they are, their parents are allowed a few minutes to visit with them in private before they are shipped off to the capital to kill other children and be killed by other children.  Do the parents use these few moments to encourage their child to resist, to not cooperate with this obvious evil?  Do they tell them they must stand up to the government and refuse to give them their spectacle, even if it means their own death?  No.  Instead, they encourage their children to fight well, win, and come home.  In other words, they encourage their children to kill other children in the tiny hope that their child will come home alive.

A good message for children?  If you are confronted with evil that endangers you, the thing to do is cooperate if that maximizes your chances of surviving the evil?  Even if it means that you have to kill other children to do it?  I don't think so.

Then the children arrive at the capital, where they are treated like heros, even though they are, in fact, victims.  For several days, perhaps several weeks, they are prepared (and trained) for the Hunger Games.  During that time, do any of the adults say to any of the children, "This is wrong and I'm not going to help you do it"?  Do any of the adults help the children to escape?  Do any of the adults encourage the children to band together with the other children from the other districts and refuse to participate in this evil spectacle, thereby putting a stop to it once and for all, even if it means losing their own lives?  No.  Instead, the adults coach the children on various techniques to win.  In other words, the adults coach the children that the goal is to kill, or at the very least, let 23 other children die, in the hope that you might live.

A good message for children?  If someone tries to force you to do something evil, the thing to do is be really good at it so you may survive?  I don't think so.

During this "preparation" period, do any of the children resist?  Do any of them stand up to the government representatives and say, "This is wrong and I'm not going to do it, no matter what you do to me.  You can't make me participate in this evil?"  Do any of them try to talk any of the other children into resisting as a group, into simply refusing to put on this performance, thereby ending the spectacle forever?  No.  None of them do.  In fact, they all participate whole-heartedly, even to the point of smilingly giving a televised interview about how they feel about being a "tribute."  They, in fact, try as hard as they can to get ready to kill other children.

A good message for children?  If you are forced into an evil situation, be as good at being evil as you can?  I guess that's sort of a version of "is something is worth doing, it's worth doing well," but I bet my mother never thought of that particular perversion of the old saying?  A good message for children?  I don't think so.

Then the "games" begin and there is a moment before the killing starts when all the children are together.  They can all see each other and hear each other.  Does even one of them call out to the others and plead, "Don't do this!  This is wrong!  It is evil for us to kill each other for the pleasure of others!  I will not kill you, no matter what!  Please don't kill me!  But, even if you do kill me, I, even if it is only me alone, will not do this!"  That's the speech I'm hoping for at that moment.  Those words represent the values I was taught as a child, the values I think are important.  But, that speech doesn't happen.  Instead, the moment passes and all of the children tear off on their various strategies for surviving the "games" at the expense of 23 other children's lives.

Then, it is true, the heroine of the story, Katniss from District 12, doesn't go on the offensive to kill other children.  But, she does kill other children.  And other children try to kill her.  Never once does she say, "I'm not going to kill you, no matter what.  It is wrong for us to do this.  I'm not going to do it, even if you do.  You may participate in this evil, but I won't, even if it costs me my life."  No.  She participates, albeit defensively, and her fictional television supporters cheer her when she kills another child.  And, I admit, sitting in the movie audience, I wanted her to prevail and I mentally cheered her when she killed another child.

But, as "feel good" as it may be once you've become attached to the character, is that a good message to send to our children?  I don't think so.

Finally, 20 other children are dead.  Some are killed by others, but some are killed by Katniss with her bow and arrows.  There are only two left, Katniss and her male co-"tribute" from District 12.  The government has fooled them into thinking that they could both win, but when it is just the two of them left, the government informs them that there can be only one winner.  One of them has to kill the other.

The boy, who loves Katniss, tells her that she should kill him, and he offers himself to her so she can live and go home.  Does she say, "No!  This is not right!  I won't kill you!  Even if they kill us both, this has to stop, right now, this very moment!  Let them kill us, but I won't kill you!"  No, she proposes that they commit suicide together.  The viewer thinks they are going to do it, when at the last moment, the government relents and lets them both live.

This is proposed by Ms. Sanchez as one of the examples of virtue taught by the movie.  Interesting, coming from an avowed Catholic, for whom suicide is a mortal sin.  But, even without being Catholic, I recognize a significant diffference between, "Let's kill ourselves, so we don't have to kill each other," and "If they kill us so be it, but we are not going to cooperate with that."

Now, admittedly, there were examples of real virtue in the movie.  One was when Katniss volunteers to go to the "games" to save her sister from having to go.  A moment of self-sacrifice in the face of evil.  Another is when the boy from District 12 says to Katniss that she should kill him so she can live, but he will not kill her.  Unfortunately, neither of these moments is paramount in the story.  They are both almost asides to the real story of Katniss being the heroine who survives at the expense of the lives ot 22 other children, by cooperating with evil.

We ought also to look at the relationship between Katniss and her male co-"tribute."  It turns out that he has loved her for years, but it is plain that she is in love with another boy in her district.  At one point in the past, when Katniss is inexplicably cold and hungry in the rain, the boy gave her some bread that was meant for the pigs.  He throws it to her while he is feeding the pigs.  During the movie, he tells her how guilty he feels about that good act, because he didn't go out to her and give her the bread face-to-face.  Real regret for not doing the right thing.  Further, he is adamant from the beginning that he will not kill Katniss, no matter what.

What is Katniss' reaction?  Katniss does things to lead the boy to believe that she shares his feelings, or is growing to do so.  She leads him on until, by the end of the movie, he thinks she loves him, even though she really doesn't.  Even when the "games" are over, they have both survived, and they are heading home, she doesn't tell him the truth - that she loves another.  But, he winds up suspecting.  Not only does this hurt him, but it hurts the boy Katniss really loves, all because Katniss is afraid to tell the truth.

So, while I am very interested in stories that explore the complexity of evil and show how easy it is to fall into evil, I do not think that is a good message for children.  I do not think a movie that makes a hero out of a child who compromises with evil in order to survive is a good message for children.

With movies like this held up as examples of how teenagers ought to behave, it is very little wonder that we have children who arm themselves and come to school and kill their classmates or that the teen suicide rate is way too high.

When I consider those who think this movie had a good message for children, I can only wonder what they would say if the 24 children in the story were chosen to go to the capital and have sex with each other, instead of killing each other.  Would they then have thought that a movie with a message that you needed to compromise your morals in order to survive was a good message?
I think children's movies should tell them that one does not compromise with evil for one's own benefit, no matter what, ever.  That would be a good message for children.

For adults?  "The Hunger Games" was a great move.  But, no one should have held it up as an example of the way children - or adults, for that matter - ought to behave.

Impressions of Mitt Romney

I rarely make personal observations here, but I feel compelled to make this one.

I've been thinking about it for quite some time.

As I listen to and watch Mitt Romney, something seems a little off.  Not terrible, but enough that I notice.  I've been trying to put my finger on it, but until recently I haven't been able to.

A day or so ago, it hit me.

Mitt Romney is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids.  He's a little uncomfortable, and it shows.  He says things he thinks will make him sound cool, and they aren't bad, but everyone wonders, "Why did he say that?"  He doesn't quite stutter, but neither is he smooth.  He always seems just a little out of place.  Not enough so that it's terrible, but enough so that you can't help but notice and wonder, as I did, "What is it about him that doesn't quite fit?"

He is like the high school kid who is trying to be friends with the cool kids.