Promote from Within

Promote from Within

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a very important position.  His duties include setting the Court’s Agenda.  In order to be effective, a Chief Justice must be responsive to his peers – the other Justices.  It seems to me extremely simple to realize that confirming a Chief Justice from outside the current “Brotherhood” dooms that Chief Justice to begin his tenure from a disadvantage so severe there may be no chance of recovery.

It may be that Mr. Roberts is such an insider and/or such an astute individual that he can feel his way through the connections which have been built up over time.  Maybe he’ll be able to sense the camaraderie and animosity which exists between the Justices on a variety of subjects.  Maybe he’ll know from some published history what alliances exits, and maybe he’ll have the deftness or intuition to be able to stretch those alliances without straining or snapping them.

I know that task would be beyond me.

It would be beyond, I think, almost anyone.

Regardless of his qualifications to be confirmed as a Justice, his non-membership makes him a poor choice for Chief Justice.

President Bush should have sought to promote from within.   

Gasoline prices in Atlanta

Gasoline prices in Atlanta, Ga. today were as high as $6.099 per gallon for regular unleaded.

Gasoline prices in Atlanta, Ga. last week were as high as $2.499 per gallon for regular unleaded.

Governor Sonny Perdue is on the television today saying “If you didn’t pay that much for the gas from your supplier, then you can’t sell it for that high a price!”

Governor Sonny Perdue was on the TV yesterday saying “There is no gasoline shortage.  Do not hoard gasoline.  Do not panic.”

There isn’t any real relationship between these snippets, except that my wife e-mailed me yesterday at about 10:00 to let me know about the Governor’s comments, so I went out to fill my gas tank before 11:00 am.  When I filled up there was no line, and the price was $2.769 per gallon.

If the Governor hadn’t made his speech, I would have not gone to fill up my tank.  I expect that many of the people creating the current crush would be the same.

But also, if no warning or plea had been issued, I would have been stranded somewhere — run out of gas and unable to buy more.

No One Anticipated a Breach

“No One Anticipated a Breach in the Levees.”

President Bush said that today.

I can’t figure out whether he believes it himself, or is so disinterested, or he’s a pathological liar.

Given his education and background, I really believe the latter.

Definition of Terms

It has long been apparent to me that idealogical poiticos and advertisers try to redefine common terminology so they can deliver a specific message using preferred phrasing.

For instance, advertisers regularly decide that "any simple change - even in just packaging" menas improved. This way, their product can be repeatedly IMPROVED! and sold as such.

The oldest redefinition, it seems, in use by politicos today is for the term "compromise." Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert have all openly explained that they will compromise on whatever point is unde discussion by allowing the opposition to change to their viewpoint. Ergo, "compromise" means "you do what I want."

The "Illusionary" Trust fund

Al Gore told us then candidate George W. Bush was proposing giving the excess funds from Social Security contributions to the rich. Did we listen?

From The Washington Monthly
"Political Animal" blog by Kevin Drum

THE "ILLUSIONARY" TRUST FUND....There are lots of different ways to look at Social Security funding issues, and pretty much every one of them is jaw-droppingly boring. What's more, since the Bush administration is plainly not interested in actual policy issues related to Social Security, it seems not only boring but also pointless to keep yammering away about it.
But yammer we must. So here's one more angle to think about.

Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. In 1983, Alan Greenspan headed up a commission that recommended saving Social Security from imminent doom by raising those payroll taxes to cover expected increases in Social Security payouts. But there was a twist: Greenspan recommended raising payroll taxes above what was required to actually pay current benefits to retirees, with the resulting surplus used to buy treasury bonds that would be piled up each year in Social Security's trust fund. And since these bonds were sold to the trust fund by the federal government, this means that the federal government got a big chunk of extra money every year for use in the general fund.

Under this scheme, payroll taxes were sufficient to cover payouts plus bond purchases until about 2018. Then, from 2018 to 2042, when payroll taxes would no longer be enough to cover payouts, the difference would be made up by cashing in the bonds in the trust fund. In other words, the feds would tap into the general fund to give back all the money that Social Security had handed over between 1983 and 2018. This money would come from the same place all general fund money comes from: income taxes.

Still with me? Here's what this means:

Between 1983-2018, this plan calls for payroll taxes to be higher than they need to be to cover payouts to retirees. However, because the surplus payroll taxes are handed over to the feds, it means income taxes are lower than they would otherwise be.

Then, between 2018-2042, payroll taxes will be less than they need to be to pay benefits to retirees. However, the difference will be made up by higher income taxes, which will be used to pay off the trust fund bonds.

Payroll taxes are paid mostly by the middle class and the poor. Income taxes are paid mostly by the well off.

So: for 35 years the middle class and the poor pay excess payroll taxes and the well off get a break on their income taxes. However, for the following 24 years the middle class and the poor get a break on their payroll taxes and the well off finance it by paying higher income taxes.
Now, this may sound like a dumb idea to you, but that was the deal. The bottom 80% take it on the chin for a few decades, followed by a couple of decades in which the well off get socked.
But suppose — as conservatives are laying the groundwork for — that Bush decides the trust fund is a mirage, just a giant IOU from one part of the government to the other. And as part of his "reform" plan he proposes a complex scheme that, when stripped to its essentials, entails doing away with the flim flam of that illusionary trust fund and the higher income taxes it will require when 2018 finally rolls around. What would that mean?

It would mean that the middle class and the poor got suckered into overpaying their taxes for three decades, and then when the bill came due the well off ducked out of their end of the bargain.

Of course, that would be a brazen rip off of the middle class in order to give a break to the well off and the rich. George Bush would never do something like that, would he?

Social Security Reform

One topic which is opined and bloviated about currently is Social Security Reform. President George W. Bush wants to enable private accounts where an individual's payments into the Social Security System are collected into a private account pending his retirement.

It sounds almost like a good idea. An investment account held by the Federal Government rather than a brokerage house. It is too bad the idea won't work - and it makes me wonder if the whole point isn't to force the system to fail.

Payroll taxes are not an investment. In other words, the system is very low risk and essentially no return. The social Security Administration keeps track of who pays what amounts into the system, and who gets what amount of benefits. The average worker will pay in about what a 20 year long retirement will pay back (in constant dollars). Many payees don't make it into retirement, much less enjoy a 20 year long one - so a large portion of the participants get less in total benefits than they paid into the system.

As is rehashed in seemingly every story on he subject, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Today's workers pay into the system money that is used to pay out benefits to today's' retirees. Until the "reform" of nearly 20 years ago, it was a system in balance - payments into the system, less operating costs, equaled payments out.

Proponents of Private Investment Accounts claim the stock market has a history of increasing value over the long term. They further promise that if each worker had a private account in the stock market, everyone would earn a little extra money for their retirement. This is the big lie.

The first question, which most opposing pundits ask, is how do we pay the transition cost from our pay-as-you-go system to an investment account system. The answer to this question is as obvious as it is politically unpalatable - the only choices are debt or reduced benefits or a combination. It seems like the Bush Administration will choose debt as their answer - which in the long run will more than wipe out any gains made by the investments. So we can leave this question and move on.

As you may have guessed and definitely should know, investments carry associated risk. When risk is present, some portion of the people involved will lose money. In the Private Accounts scenario, these people will simply be left with less than their starting amount (contributions). A simple bell curve will show that probably 60% of the participants will be in this "loser" pool. And, worse, after you take inflation and broker's fees into account the number will rise to 75% or so.

To me, this question is much larger and much more important than the former question. When we as a nation figure out that only a few are getting served as promised, what will we do?

War on Terror

I've read and listened to very many discussions about our current "War on Terror." Most seem to revolve around the question of whether Iraq should be included under the umbrella - which is to me not the right question.

The proper question has to be "Are we fighting a war against a defined foe, or are we fighting against a tactic of war."

If we are fighting against a tactic, or the idea behind the tactic, we have already lost. By waging "war" against the idea/tactic we are spreading it. We are increasing the numbers of people who know about it, and at the same time increasing the number of people who decide that the use of the tactic is appropriate.

Even more, the tactic is intended to produce an emotion {Terrorism is supposed to produce terror in one's opponent's}. War, in and of itself, does nothing to end but much to promote exactly the emotion Terrorists intend to instill.

Because our actions defeat our purpose, we will either never finish or we will lose this war.

The best course of action for us right now is to "Frame" the debate, in the style described by Kevin Drum, as being a war against Al Qaida, or Iraq, or any one specific. There is no other way to either win or end this war.

The Foundation of Our Law?

A great man once told me that he expected the years immediately before and after the Millenium to be frought with religious ferver. He said those years would have much uncertainty, and one human response to uncertainty is to cling all the tighter to religion. It remains no surprise to me that this has come to pass. In fact I believe the uncertainty effect is beginning to recede - and I cite as evidence the current debate about whether the Ten Commandments, delivered unto Moses, are "the Foundation" or our current legal system. It seems to me that considering this question alone brings the realization that in some ways our civilization has swung too far towards religiosity, and the pendulum is beginning its reverse course.

Are the Ten Commandments the Foundations of our current legal system?

By definition, being the foundation means that our legal system is built upon the Commandments. Is this true? Following are the Commandments - paraphrased, but based upon Exodus 20 as published in the Catholic Bible - and my estimation as to whether each is a basis to our laws.

#1 You shall have no other gods before me, you shall not make or worship idols
The Constitution of the United States specifies that our legal system should be silent on the matter of religion, which means that America does not have a state religion, and America can not force her citizens to adhere to a religion. It is therefore a right of Americans to be atheistic, agnostic, buddist, rastafarian, etc. Also, in connection with many of the religions practiced in America, we have many, many "graven images." This Commandment is purposefuly excluded from our legal system

#2 Do not take the Lord's name in vain
We have a traditon of, and right to, "Free Speech" in America. We hold "Speaking truth to power" in high esteem. We don't even have to get into a discussion of what "taking His name in vain" means. This one is also purposefuly excluded from our legal system.

#3 Keep the Sabbath holy
The Sabbath was orignally, and is still for Jews, sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. For most Christians, the Sabbath is now understood to be Sunday, or even just Sunday morning. During a portion of America's Colonial period, some locales banned work/commercial enterprise on Sunday. In recent years, many locales have banned the sale of alcohol on Sundays (except in restaurants). However, even during our Colonial period, most locales allowed commerce and work on Sundays. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, working seven days a week was required. Our current weekend, including the sabbath, came from the changes wrought by labor unions - changes usually supported by Churches, but which had little to do with religion. In the case of alcohol sales the laws are more a vestige of Prohibiton than a compliance with this Commandment. So again my answer is this is not in our laws.

For the first three Commandments then, it seems to me that rather than being enshrined, they are specifically shunned by our American legal system. So far, we're 0 for 3.

#4 Honor your Father and Mother
This Commandment is not included in our laws either. Our legal system recognizes many rights, responsibilities and privileges of parents - to and from the State. But nothing in our laws requires our Children to honor us. 0 for 4.

#5 You shall not kill
I'll agree this Commandment is in our laws. However, it should be noted that our laws allow exceptions not included in the Commandment - like war and self defense. Any way, we're at 1 for 5.

#6 No adultery
Adultery can be grounds for divorce, but it is not illegal. There have been times in our history when it was illegal for the wife to be adulterous. but in those times it was not illegal for the husband - go figure.

#7 Do not steal
This one is definitely in our laws, notwithstanding the legalistic argumets surrounding what constitutes "stealing." Now we are at 2 for 7.

#8 Do not bear false witness
This one is tough. It is illegal to lie to police, agents of the government, etc. and it is illegal to give false testimony on the witness stand. However, it is not illegal to present the portion of a story which makes one look good (advertising), or to gossip, or to rumor-monger. I think we can only give this one half credit - so we are 2.5 for 8.

#9 Do not covet your neighbor's wife
#10 Do not covet your neighbor's possesions
Rather than outlaw covetousness, we celebrate it. We call it "Keeping up with the Joneses." Our laws are silent about proscribing thought.

That brings the total score to 25%. This is not what I would call a foundation for our legal system.

The counter to my refutation might be that the Ten Commandments are the basis for civilization itself. We all regardless of religion tend to teach our children at least 5 of the listed proscriptions. We teach our children not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery and we teach them to honor us - so there is some basis to the argument. However, these proscriptions transcend one religion. They are taught pretty much by every religion, and they are taught pretty much by every society.

My conclusion is therefore that the Ten Commandments in part reflect some of the rules wihtout which a society could not function. This is happy coincedence, only.

The Big Picture

I was reading an article published by Salon.com titled Looking for votes, finding America (Salon.com, October 7, 2004, by Jonathan Alford - subscription or day pass required) when I came accross this quote:

• Irma tells me her husband can't come to the phone as he has just gotten out of the hospital and is resting. She confides that she too had a stroke two years ago and they both are pretty much housebound. "I don't know what we are going to do. I thought that you were supposed to enjoy the older years -- you work your whole life for this?"

Empathy welled up, and I found myself thinking about an recurring idea. I keep comiing back to the queston, Which party's ideology is better?

I know, I know. The one seems unrelated to the other. But only at first glance.

The grand trend of History seems to be specialization. As population increases, first inside family groups and later in towns, regions & nations, civilization is repeatedly confronted with too many people available to perform a given task. At that nexus, every time, civilzation chooses to split the people into groups, each of which each then specializes. The people who engage in the new specialization can effectively do the same amount of work (reach the sme production level) as the formerly larger group because the smaller group is more efficient.

For example, a prehistoric family would have a hunter and a gatherer, each required in order to survive. As the family grows and becomes a tribe (2 or more families), they discover that sending 5 men out on a hunt is harder becuase the larger group tends to scare prey away, so they break the hunters into groups -- tool makers and hunters. Similarly, the gatherers will divide into hearth tenders and gatherers. As the population increases, these specialties will divide again into spear makers & hammer makers, trackers & slayers, root diggers & tree pickers, child rearers & fire tenders. Each time the new specialization frees the people in that group from some portion of work which allows them to spend more time at the main task. Some groups will grow faster than others, and so will split into more specializations. Each group of specialists as a correlary, has a responsibility to all the other groups -- and this shared cross-responsibility implies that each group can rely on the other groups.

Republicans, especially Libertarians, and their brethren believe that what is best for "Business" is best for the nation. Much of their argument is sensible. Without business there would be no jobs, etc. Indeed, commerce is a direct result of the specialization trend.

Today's "Business" however seems to be trying to buck the trend. Multinational corporations are large communities, but as they reach the specialization nexus, time after time they choose not to split. More wealth gets concentrated at the top, and the organization tries to trend to generalization.

A side effect of this anti-historical trend is the loss of the sense of responsibility to everyone else. This side effect will in the end prove lethal. And, it is the tie-in -- the sense of unease expressed by Irma above. She was implicitly promised somehitng by her participation in our civilization, but she sees the real possibilty that the promise will not be kept.

Republicans support and defend this anti-historical trend.