Sunny Days

 

     Winter has been dragging on a long time in some places.  Here are some of our terra cotta (and poured concrete) sun (and moon) faces to hopefully cheer you up.

     This poured concrete one is new:  one of my Christmas gifts to my husband.  Some of the turquoise paint was on there, but I made the turquoise eye more noticeable.  The moon part was all turquoise, no accents.  We both thought it would look better with a terra cotta eye, "stars" and other accents, so I added those.

 

 This terra cotta one was our out-front stand-by for years.  It was also a past Christmas gift to my husband.  I added the turquoise details for effect.  (Our current house, Mediterranean style, has a terra cotta house number sign.  I painted the numbers turquoise, too.)  The cracks are just the aging of untreated terra cotta, which is like those pots for plants.  The super glue will prevent further cracking, but he's "lost points", too.  He's going on the back wall.  

Rodney Dangerfield dopplegänger?

  

 

        This smaller terra cotta face has mostly been an inside decoration.  He's too small to see well outside.   Turquoise accents also added by me.

     

   This sun/moon was also a gift to my husband.  He painted this one quite brightly years ago.  It is also an indoors decoration.

     

More Choices

    The 20th Century was, in many ways, a tug of war between far right (often fascist) and far left (communist) movements in many parts of the world.  Each of these movements would justify what they did, saying "At least, I'm not those guys..."  "We just do what we do to keep those guys at bay..."

      Guess what?  They're both bad; they're both really bad. They both lead to autocracy.  Once autocracy is in place, it all becomes about propping up the autocrat's ego and/or greed.  Whatever the people who put the autocrat in place wanted, that fades in light of the autocrat keeping his position, no matter what.

       As we move into the 21st century, this tug-of-war seems active in the U.S.  If you listen closely to the loudest of the voices, they seem perfectly willing to cave in to autocracy to get what they want.

     Beware-- what you thought you'd get by supporting an autocrat will fail.

      Besides the absolute Center, there are 4 dimensions that actually combine differently in different voters:  liberal on social matters, liberal on economic matters, conservative on social matters, and conservative on economic matters.  

     One of these voices that actually exists but is almost completely unrepresented is the voice that is conservative on social matters (or at least wants to ensure that religious conservatives have an on-going place in society), yet economically liberal (which doesn't necessarily imply full-fledged communism or even socialism; all these dimensions lie on a spectrum).   Some people who don't understand this position assume that it would be an autocratic one.  Not necessarily.  The positions defined as "Christian Democratic Parties" in much of Europe fall into this perspective.  These parties actually do not seek to exclude people who are socially liberal from the society nor deny their rights. They just want to ensure that people who practice traditional or conservative religions (in ways where they are not discriminating again others in society) are also not ostracized from society for their beliefs.  In addition, many European countries that are otherwise liberal do not have free and unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy.  Some Americans who believe in this combination feel that better support for workers is a family matter (supporting something that's socially conservative); it might also reduce abortions. 

     The economically conservative yet socially liberal is not officially represented by either major political party but is hugely represented in influence across society.  They are loosely defined as the "Libertarians."  This is the position a lot of businesses and business leaders like.  Be nice to everyone on the surface.  But don't let everyone know that it's still much easier for the rich to get richer than people on lower rungs to climb any higher.

     The right & left are getting very polarized socially.  The economic area has many centrist thinkers.  Some of the center has shifted into liberal economic territory during the 45th presidential administration.  But the economic center is still larger than the economic left.  This region, especially slightly left of center, is actually similar to the propositions discussed in the paragraph on European Christian Democrats.  This would be more of a repeal of Reaganomics, improving educational & training opportunities, improving a safety net for workers or the truly disabled, improving public works projects (some of which would also improve the environment). All of these would be aims without price controls (except possibly in the area of medicine, such as prescription medicines and insurance costs); without taking over industries; etc.  Private enterprise would continue.

     Though the Right & Left are becoming more polarized on social issues, this does not mean that the numbers are equal.  It does appear the Religious Right is shrinking and is maintaining its political clout is somewhat artificial ways. This is not helpful for anyone in the long term.

     If we had better representation, it would take the force of one vs. the other away.  It would be less likely that an eventual "victor" would pull everyone off the cliff with a huge tug.

Quote from St. Nick

 “The giver of every good and perfect gift has called upon us to mimic His giving, by grace, through faith, and this is not of ourselves.”  ― St. Nicholas of Myra; (St. Nicholas Day is December 6th)

Wisdom from a Spiritual Source

     The work of William Cowper (pronounced "Cowper"; 1731-1800) is featured on both my blogs this month. For more information, see the Christian Nature Poetry blog.
     Below are some timeless quotes from Cowper. Source material provided when possible.

"Variety's the very spice of life, That gives it all its flavour." --"The Timepiece", 1785; lines 606-607

"I am monarch of all I survey..." --Verses Supposed to be Written by Alexander Seldirk, 1782; line 1

"But still remember, if you mean to please, To press your point with modesty and ease." --William Cowper, John William Cunningham; “The works of William Cowper: Poems : with an essay on the genius and poetry of Cowper”, p.158 (1835)

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

"Who loves a garden loves a greenhouse, too." --“The Task: A Poem. In Six Books”, p.89 (1810)

"God made the country, and man made the town." --"The Sofa" line 749 (1785)

"Misery still delights to trace Its semblance in another's case." --“The Works of William Cowper: His Life, Letters, and Poems. Now First Completed by the Introduction of Cowper's Private Correspondence”, p.446 

“If the world like it not, so much the worse for them.” --Letters

"A little sunshine is generally the prelude to a storm."

"A life of ease is a difficult pursuit." -- “Poems”, p.290 (1815)

"No one was ever scolded out of their sins."

"When nations perish in their sins, 'tis in the Church the leprosy begins." --“Poems of William Cowper, Esq”, p.57 (1824) 

"The darkest day, if you live till tomorrow, will have past away."

"Nature is a good name for an effect whose cause is God." -- "The Winter Walk At Noon”

"England, with all thy faults, I love thee still..." --“The Life and Works of William Cowper: His life and letters by William Hayley" (1835) 

"No man can be a patriot on an empty stomach."

Ye therefore who love mercy, teach your sons to love it, too. --“The Poetical Works of William Cowper”, p.143 (1854)

"A fool must be right now and then, by chance." --"Conversation" line 96 (1782)

“Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much. Wisdom is humble that he knows not more.”

“Satan trembles, when he sees the weakest Saint upon his knees.” --“Olney Hymn 29: Exhortation To Prayer” 

"Man may dismiss compassion from his heart, but God never will."   --"The Winter Walk At Noon” 

"A self-made man? Yes, and one who worships his Creator."

"We turn to dust, and all our mightiest works die too." “The Works of William Cowper: Comprising His Poems, Correspondence, and Translations. With a Life of the Author”, p.83 (1835).

"Skins may differ, but affection Dwells in White and Black the same." --joint works & letters with James Thomson (1850)

     Cowper was an ardent abolitionist. He wrote a poem, "The Negro's Complaint." [old-fashioned terminology] A couple centuries later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., quoted Cowper.

Bio from The Poetry Foundation

Cowper: "Light Shining Out of Darkness"; Christian Nature Poetry blog

Cowper: Seasonal Poem, Christian Nature Poetry Blog 

Why Did That Chicken Cross the Road?

(Some of this is a bit behind the times, but you all still know the references.)

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!
BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish it's lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

Equal Balance

“The tempter always works on some real weakness in our own system of values: offers food to some need which we have starved.”

   "I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government… The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows...
     "I do not think that equality is one of those things (like wisdom or happiness) which are good simply in themselves and for their own sakes. I think it is in the same class as medicine, which is good because we are ill, or clothes which are good because we are no longer innocent… Legal and economic equality are absolutely necessary remedies for the Fall, and protection against cruelty...
     But medicine is not good... When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget, but as an ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of that obedience on the other - the man who has never even wanted to kneel or to bow - is a prosaic barbarian.      "But it would be wicked folly to restore these old inequalities on the legal or external plane. Their proper place is elsewhere...It is there, of course, in our life as Christians -- there, as laymen, we can obey – all the more because the priest has no authority over us on the political level. It is there in our relation to parents and teachers – all the more because it is now a willed and wholly spiritual reverence. It should be there also in marriage. We shall never be safe unless we already understand in our hearts all that the anti-democrats can say, and have provided for it better than they."  --C.S. Lewis, "Equality"; The Spectator, 1943
C.S. Lewis on Equality and Our Core Misconception About Democracy
"Equality"; The Spectator, vol. CLXXI (27 August 1943), p. 192

Walking, American Style

An American author for this Fourth of July, from one of his lesser-known works:

"He who sits still in a house all the time may be the greatest vagrant of all; but the saunterer, in the good sense, is no more vagrant than the meandering river... No wealth can buy the requisite leisure freedom, and independence which are capital in this profession... You must be born into the family of Walkers...  the walking of which I speak has nothing in it akin to taking exercise, as it is called... but is itself the enterprise and adventure of the day... " 
 ---Henry David Thoreau in "Walking",  from the Atlantic Monthly, 1862.

Art TELLS Life

This 16th century Flemish [Belgian] painting takes a dim view of what happens when we humans turn on one another and devour one another.  This is happening right now, when uncaring and unfeeling economics are leaving too many workers in the U.S. with too few resources. 

(from the Chicago Art Institute---that city's museum):

Ted, Jr., Yet Again

     Brigadier General Theodore (Ted) Roosevelt, Jr., was President Theodore Roosevelt's oldest son.  It is especially good to remember him on D-Day,06 JUN.  He was the first General Officer on the beach on D-day.  Not only this, but he was leaning on a cane.... from injuries sustained in World War I!!!!
     As World War I had been drawing to a close, young Major Ted Roosevelt was asked to help form the American Legion.  The picture below is from the preamble to the Legion's constitution.  It mentions freedom from the "autocracy of the classes and the masses."  Neither mob rule nor oligarchy should define our country. These words are clearly those of Ted, Jr., and his father before him.  It's a shame we can't get that balance now!  (Of note, the "classes" are mentioned first... definitely a risk in our time... has been growing since the 80s.)

     For the record, the "100% Americanism" is of note.  Both Ted and his father wanted Americans to define themselves as "Americans without hyphens."  (I don't always do this because I do sometimes define myself as German-American.  I want to keep my ancestors' culture alive, particularly as I see little actual culture afloat in White America.)  But I take the point... and it cuts both ways.  It means we also have to let people of other races and other immigration statuses fully integrate as Americans. A lot of White Americans have griped over the years that minorities don't seem to fully integrate but have blocked them when they tried.  Not cool.

Nuremberg

Nuremberg is an absolutely beautiful city in Germany.  These photos are from the Frauenkirche, the Church of Our Lady (the Virgin Mary).  Nuremberg also stands as a stark reminder of other things. Because this city had a primary palace used for important events by the Holy Roman Emperor ("The Second Reich"), Hitler chose it for his Nazi rallies. Because of this, Nuremberg was nearly bombed out of existence by the Allies towards the end of World War II.  The Germans did rebuild it, but there are things that were never rebuilt. Some of this was intentional, as a perpetual reminder of the evils of Naziism.

This, of course, was also the scene of the post-war Nuremberg trials. The Allies found a venue which was not destroyed to host them.

As some of our foolish U.S. population toys with Nazi rhetoric, even daring to borrow German phrases when they probably don't speak the language, it is important to remember that eventually justice comes to those who oppress and terrorize others.

Uh, Yeah, Sure

So, let me get this straight-- it's only "trampling on the Constitution" if the other "side" does it, right?     --Marie Byars     😏😕😖😦😧😵

The Koch Brothers

[things you might want to hear from a Centrist, not a liberal]

OK, so I'm not a Democrat. But I'm still going to lay it in on the line with the sneaky, snarky Koch Brothers' Take-over of Democracy (TM).  You don't have to be a Democrat, and certainly not a Bernie-phile, to dislike their actions.  I dislike their actions so much that I would like to get personal about them, but that's not really my style. Besides, it makes for weak ad hominem ("personal attack") arguments. Right now our public debate is over-stuffed with weak ad hominem arguments.

There's a reason I'm singling them out over other bazillionaire political donors:  they seem to directly buy off more candidates, they've wrecked more havoc on the world through their businesses than have others, and they've pretty much bought off the Republican Party.  (Neither Soros nor Weinstein got that far with the DNC.)

So, in partial time-line format, here goes:

Mid-1900s:  Old Man Koch (the father of these current old men, that is) dealt with the Soviet Communist leader Stalin, one of the most evil, murderous dictators ever.  He and a partner did this by helping Stalin set up oil refineries.   That's a big part of how the Koch fortune was made.  To his credit, the old man did back down when he saw some of the suffering Stalin perpetrated.  But, still...

1974-- Some of you will remember the infamous gas lines of the 1970s.  Koch was one of four oil companies accused of overcharging customers. They were fined $50,000.  (That was a heftier sum back then.) 

1980-- David Koch was the Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate in 1980.  They thought Reagan was too liberal. 

1980s and beyond.  There are four Koch brothers.  Two of them are less ruthless, and there was a lawsuit between the brothers in the past.  Their father left them the petrochemical business.  The other two brothers felt the infamous David and Charles were spending too much of the family/corporate earnings on their own political aspirations.  The other two felt that David and Charles should have been paying out more to family members in dividends.  The feud finally ended, but the other brothers have not thought of David and Charles as being very fraternal.  Brother William ("Bill", David's twin) has been one of the whistleblowers on the infamous two.

1990s-- The Koch Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota dumped 600,000 gallons of jet fuel into a river throughout the decade.  The bros were fined $6 million, $2 million of it in remediation for violating the Clean Water Act.  (Any wonder why there's such a call now for "deregulation" and shrinking the EPA?)

1990s-- A Koch refinery vented massive amounts of benzene into Corpus Christi, Texas, five times the legal limit.  They did this knowingly, having taken pollution control devices off their equipment. They would wait until evenings or weekends, when there were fewer regulators on staff to observe them, to dump out fumes.
      The Kochs plead guilty to a single felony to avoid criminal prosecution.  They were to have paid $20 million in fines, but George W. Bush came into office and largely let them off.
     On April 9th, 2001, the US Department of Justice weighed in. There was a five year probationary period.  There was to be strict new environmental compliance program.  You can find record of the DOJ briefing on-line.
    (Benzene, in excessive amounts, causes anemic conditions by damaging bone marrow.)

1994-- The Koch Brothers were accused of covering up issues with a faulty pipeline in south Texas.  (The pipeline had been built in the 1940s.)  90,000 gallons of crude oil leaked into Gum Hollow Creek.  Employees had warned leadership, but they were ignored.

1995-- The EPA & U.S. Coast Guard filed a civil suit against the brothers' companies.  They were accused of unlawfully discharging millions of gallons of oil into the waters of six states.

Mid 1990s-2005. The Koch Bros invested in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, which ripped off savings of many individuals.  The Kochs pulled out three years before the collapse of the scheme.  The moved the money from the Madoff venture overseas, so it is untouchable for paying back lower level investors who were ripped off. A judge recently ruled that since the money is offshore, it can't be touched for legal remedies to those ripped-off.

1999-- A whistleblower reported that the Kochs had cheated on Indiana oil leases.  They were fined in 2001 and paid $25 million to settle this.  (Bro Bill brought this up in the on-going feud.)

2008--  I guess we should feel sorry for them. At this time, their $19 billion net worth each dropped to $16 billion each.  Now they espouse deregulation, but they more than made their fortunes back during the regulated times of 2008-2016.  They're up to a net worth of $41 billion each.

2008-ish- 2016-ish.  The Koch Brothers railed against "corporate welfare."  (Great way to make themselves look like "great guys", right?)  They criticized the bail-outs after the financial meltdown of 2008.  It's still debatable, but it does seem like this prevented a worse melt-down, which would have affected everyone worse.  (Although the rich got a lot better return on this, while the middle class still struggles to find its footing.)
      While publicly decrying corporate welfare, they were big financial backers of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was all about supporting the bail-outs and corporate welfare.
       2013-- they took economic development monies the federal government had sent to the states for improvements.

2009--  The Koch Brothers were responsible for a superfund site in Michigan, you know, one of those mega-environmental disasters that cost a super-large amount of funds to clean up?  The DOJ and the EPA brought up issues.  The Koch Brothers got away with paying only $7 million for the clean-up by settling in a "sweetheart deal."  (Interesting, as you'll see below, that they fund something called "The Goldwater Institute."  Yet Senator Barry Goldwater had actually been very concerned about environmental issues.)

2009 & beyond--  The Kochs financially assisted big banks in their lobbying blitz against Wall Street reform.

2012-- The Koch Brothers spend ~$400 million on Republican candidates.

~2012-Present--  The Kochs were among other supply side & Libertarian-type advisors encouraging the State of Kansas to keep lowering their taxes.  (The Kochs are more-or-less headquartered in Wichita.)  Governor Brownback went along with this, despite seeing how similar policies had ruined Louisiana under Governor Jindal.  Kansas has faced bankruptcy.  Several schools couldn't finish their 2016-17 school year. And the promised growth in business and income never came.

2017--  The Kochs have told Fox News that they're spending $400 million for the 2018 mid-term elections.

On-going--  The Kochs truly believe that there should be -0- taxes. Can you imagine trying to run a modern nation like that?

On-going-- The Koch Bros. believe there should be NO minimum wage.

On-going-- They give money to the National Right to Life organization, even though they're pro-choice. They know this is one of the surest ways to buy off a segment of conservative voters.  (David Koch is actually pro-choice and pro-LGBT.  But they pay to put socially conservative candidates in office to get the benefits of lowered taxes, less regulation.)

On-going-- the bros call Social Security a threat to the future stability of society.  They have said it's a worse threat than nuclear war. (Great. Add to the inflammatory rhetoric, though usually decrying it.)  Think about that when you have to pay all of Grandma's bills.  Or when a North Korean nuke is flying over your head. Yeah.  Real sensible.

On-going--  While I applaud Senator Jeff Flake for speaking up courageously on the Senate floor regarding current bad behavior in politics, I cannot agree with his close cooperation with the Koch Brothers.  He's taken money from them, and gone to many of their seminars.  Another prominent Arizonan doing likewise?  Governor Doug Ducey.  (And the poor education and infrastructure spending in AZ reflect this.)

On-going-- The Kochs fund the Goldwater Institute in Arizona. One of the recent things the institute did was agree to provide a lawyer to FIGHT the wishes of the electorate of Arizona!  Arizonans did not want the school voucher program expanded, but the Koch-controlled legislature and Koch-controlled governor did it anyway.  A legitimate petition was signed by enough voters to get it on the ballot to override elected lawmakers, a right enshrined in the AZ constitution.  (One which the Legislature has attempted to curtail by reducing the ways in which signatures can be gathered.)  Interestingly, the institute and state leadership backed down on this one.

On-going--  Charles Koch is the Director of the Mercatus Center.  Congress increasingly draws their information and findings for reports and bills from Mercatus.

On-going--  The Kochs have managed to plant "schools" within public universities and have managed to get state legislatures to fund most of the costs. These "schools" are indoctrination programs for Koch thinking. Arizona leaders claim we never have enough for K-12 nor higher education, but they set aside $5 million for ASU and U of A Koch-backed foundations.  To recap:  The state is paying the vast majority of Koch-implemented university programs, not the Kochs.  (Arizona is not the only state to do so, but probably the most egregious example.)

On-going-- Koch College at the College of Charleston obtained personal information about students.

On-going-- They say they believe in prison reform. But they're perfectly willing to shell out big bucks to (White) Republican candidates who use Black inmate imagery as scare tactics to get elected.  (One commentator wryly asked whether the Koch Brothers interest in prison reform and willingness to hire inmates has to do with the 2001 legal finding against them regarding benzene, noted above.)

On-going--  The Kochs want all schools privatized. They're big movers behind the charter school movement.  Problem is, it's inappropriate to always put charters on a pedestal. Charters don't have use licensed teachers.  (This is what the Kochs like, though; no pensions for retired teachers. Why should they have to pay for someone put out to pasture?)  There has been fraud among many charter schools. And, if it's really about better choices for disadvantaged students, there would be a free & safe transportation component.

On-going-- They're Trump "frenemies."  They refused to give Trump money, and he refused to come begging.  They don't like his independence. (All the other GOP primary candidates went groveling.)  They part ways on free-trade  immigration.  But they're lock-step in making sure corporations* & rich people have lower taxes and that we deregulate things---the consequences be d****d!!! 
    (*see other posts with tag "economy"; I'm not totally opposed to restructuring corporate taxes, if it's done right; there is also some room for loosening regulations on loans to homebuyers) 

On-going-- Vice President Pence is in the act.  He's been bought-off for a while. Take a look at the VP's recent activity:
                 Pence Meets with Koch Brother in Colorado

This is from The Hill, a centrist to slightly right-of-center news agency.

If the Kochs would just be responsible citizens and pay their taxes, it might cost them less in legal fees & settlements and election buy-offs.  And leave them a better legacy. I mean, these dudes are getting old. One of them is pushing 80.  It's not like they can take it with them!!!  

Article II, Section 8 U.S. Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare [emphasis mine] of the United States... "

The conservative, "narrow" constitutionalists of our day do not have a "lock" on the Constitution.  It was meant to be a living, growing document.  The provision for "general welfare" encompasses many things.   In other words, sometimes the government helps those less off to promote everyone's "general welfare."  Societal unrest destroys the general welfare.

It *IS* Fair to Tax the Rich More

First of all, is "fair" exactly the right lens to look through when discussing broad political policies?  It seems the right measure would be "what does the most good while doing the least harm for most people?"

Overall, the best coupling of economic-political systems seems to be democracy and capitalism with appropriate "safety valves" in place.

The "fairness" question has a lot to do with "safety valves" among other things.  Without some checks on rampant greed, government officials can just be "bought out", and you end up with an oligarchy,  rule by the wealthy, over time.

Another safety valve involves the stock market.  As I've said elsewhere in this blog, too low of taxes on the rich leaves too much money for stock market speculation at the top. The market crashes, and we ALL end up saddled with the increases to national debt that come with this.  This debt saddles our descendents, too.  Debt pay-off is a far higher percentage of middle class resources than upper class resources. 

After the first shock waves of the 2008 crash passed, the wealthy regained their wealth quickly. The middle class, which had already been struggling to maintain its place, keeps falling further behind. We really did bail out the rich more than the poor did.

Returning to the national debt:  if we don't pay it down, our country's ability to borrow money will be impacted negatively.  We will have to pay more interest to borrow money.  One prong in paying down the national debt involves raising taxes on the wealthy.  We could someday leave our children or grandchildren with the harsh austerity measures of Greece.  This would hit the middle harder than the wealthy at first, of course.  Over time, though, as the middle was squeezed more and could not be extended personal credit in the way it has been, they will not be able to support the wealthy through buying from the companies and corporations of the wealthy as much.  (I have also made this point elsewhere.)

The wealthy either outright own or own more stock in corporations that damage or negatively affect the environment.  Frequently, these companies/corporations would rather pay fines than fix the problems that hurt the environment or workers.  So we all get saddled with the eventual costs of clean-up or medical bills.  (The corporation may pay some costs in lost productivity.) While corporations pay part of the clean-up costs, we need an active Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make this happen. This costs money.  As the wealthy are profiting more from corporations, it seems "fair" to make them pay a larger share in ensuring the negative impact is limited or addressed.

When poorer people don't have insurance, they use emergency rooms later into their illnesses.  Emergency rooms cannot turn people away.  The hospitals recoup their costs via charging everyone more.  That drives everyone's health insurance up more.  The costs for insurance are a far lower percentage of the wealthy's compensation packages than it is for the middle class.  (The poor figure in differently, due to subsidies.)

There are other ways that the health industry benefits the wealthy out of all of this.  Hospitals keep being allowed to merge, although it is not necessarily good for the public.  Hospitals frequently operate, technically, by non-profit rules that benefit their ability to rake in the money.  But being non-profits doesn't stop them from paying their boards and their managing staff (roughly the equivalents of "CEOs") enormous salaries.  Additionally, health insurance companies and their CEOs, which are for profit, rake in big $$$.

(As an aside, the German system does not allow insurance companies to make a profit from basic policies.  The companies make their profits from the high-end "designer" policies.  Maybe a thought for here?)

The argument comes up that the wealthy are "job creators."  Not so fast. When greed became fashionable in the 80s (a fashion that has not died), a lot of corporate muckety-mucks accelerated the pace of moving jobs overseas to cheaper labor.  There is nothing written into current federal tax-lowering schemes that makes the wealthy produce more high-paying jobs in exchange for lowered taxes.  Besides which, some of the wealthy inherited their wealth.  Others are CEOs, who managed to get themselves into a "sweet deal." And they don't always lead their companies to better earnings. Even when they don't, they get obnoxiously high salaries, or at least the "golden parachute" to just leave and let another CEO give it a try.  And they have no obligation to create more high-paying jobs here. Their only obligations are to helping the shareholders get higher returns on their stocks.

There are those entrepreneurs who have created companies and wealth in their own generation. But, generally, they relied on strength, talents and resources of others. And a lot of the people in this category are very generous and give away a lot of their earnings.

Another reason raising federal taxes on the wealthy is fairer than you think is that state and local taxes tend to even out the percentages everyone pays in taxes.  State taxes are less graduated (everyone pays "closer" to the same percentage) and sales taxes take a far higher percentage of your money, the less you earn (or take home in disability or retirement pay).

Wars and the costs of caring for Veterans are another reason to tax the rich more. We're given all sorts of "noble reasons" why we've gone to war. And sometimes those noble reasons are true, though sometimes there are reasons to be skeptical.  Either way, the wealthy benefit off of wars. They disproportionately own stocks in companies that make military supplies and equipment.  VP Cheney's Halliburton connections appear to have benefitted from the Iraq war. Yet, servicemembers come disproportionately out of lower classes.  And we all have to pay the high financial and social costs of injured Veterans.

Some states have tried ridiculous tax-lowering, as I've also mentioned elsewhere.  There have been some states that kept cutting to the point of ridiculous.  Kansans went out to warn other states trying these policies that Kansas has tried that the policies didn't work.  Some of these states did couple corporate tax cuts with the requirement to provide jobs with certain salary levels.  Others did not. Still, Kansas and Louisiana, as mentioned elsewhere, ran into serious problems.  It looks like Wisconsin is going that way; the programs are beginning to be very unpopular there.  It seems only a matter of time until Arizona learns the hard way. 

Another reason I don't like this is how much this line of thinking is bought out directly by the Koch Brothers.  When you trace all the ways they funnel money to candidates to promote this, it's scary.  I won't list them all here right  now.  But there are a couple points worth making.

As an aside, I will mention a couple of the glaring improprieties of how the Kochs are setting too much of the national agenda.  First of all, their constant interference makes democracy a farce.  Secondly, the Kochs aren't terribly honest.  They're very willing to "use" conservatives who are pro-life, while the Kochs are decidedly pro-choice.  At some point, when they've gotten their way on economic matters, will they buy out the public thinking on abortion?  (There are other social conservative preferences that are the opposite of what the Kochs want.  I will not discuss all that here.  Suffice it to say, it looks like they're using people.)

As mentioned in my post on libertarianism, the Kochs literally want -0- taxes. That's not realistic at all in a modern society.  (see that post for more details) 

The Kochs bring out a great deal of cynicism in me.  There are so many things deserving another post at another time on the Kochs' operations.  But that's not the main point of this post.  The reason they came up in this post is their constant pushing of the opposite of what would be helpful for the U.S. to move forward. And I wanted to point out that they buy politicians' intentions.  

I agree that there's a point at which taxes are too high on the wealthy.  I'm no "Bernie, Jr.", either.  (I think his use of "socialism" was misapplied.  And it risks letting people like me get labelled as "socialist", which I'm not.  The correct definition of socialism is, according to Merriam-Webster: "1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property."  Even Bernie doesn't believe this.)  The "sweet spot" seems to be setting federal taxes on the wealthy somewhere between 40 to 45% and more fully graduating state taxes, to have more brackets.  (I realize I mentioned how having them less graduated equalizes things more, but they would still not likely end up fully graduated in most states.)

Think for yourself.  Don't follow straight ideologies.

In Business We Trust....

"Business ethics":  an oxymoron.

The Pitfalls of Libertarianism

(aka:  "The United States of Koch Brothers")

(1)  This has never been a Libertarian country.  No matter what libertarians try to say about the early days and the Founding Fathers, it never was.  

(2)  Even if it had a bit more of a Libertarian bent in the early decades, that would no longer work, practically, in today's society. Things have changed. At the time of our founding, we were much more rural.  And if people ran out of space or wanted second chances or wanted to try to "get ahead", they often moved further west, where they could homestead.  (I'm not going to argue the ethics here about whether they should have taken land from Native Americans.  I'm only presenting what happened.)

(3)  When we were more rural, there was less social unrest. And those who were still rural could insulate themselves from a lot of it.  Now that we're living on top of each other in cities and sizeable towns, we can't do that.  If only for self-interest, there has to be some sort of safety net.  The alternative is to spend a lot more on law enforcement and incarceration.

(This is not to argue to liberal opposite that we must try to equalize income.  That would be socialism.  Of course, there are leaders on the Right that want to talk about any increase on taxes on the 1% for the public good as "socialism."  I know this for a fact because I went to see my congressman, Representative Trent Franks, in person [knowing it was probably a lost cause but doing so, anyway] armed with facts, and he tried bringing up the "s" word.  I shot that down... there was a long time that the top earners paid higher taxes in the 20th Century. And they lived through it... quite well, in fact.)

(4)  The Koch Brothers, when you read their stuff thoroughly, would truly like to work their way down to a 0% tax rate.  Think about that, if it really happens.  No public roads, no public libraries, no student loans, no public education, no consistency from one state to another.  Talk about your roving hoards in that scenario...

(5)  Kansas was so bankrupt from trying the Koch Brothers-Laffer [see above post]-Grover Norquist-type supply-side tax reductions that some schools couldn't even finish the 2016/2017 school year.  Yeah, increasing an under-educated, under-paid portion of society is always a good thing.... especially now that we live on top of each other!

(6)  Maybe some of the uber-wealthy are planning to build compounds to protect themselves from the social unrest.  However, when there's less money from the middle class being spent on the stuff that rich people's corporations put out, it's going to hit them, too. Because all this WILL shrink the middle class, or at least its buying power.  See the many links to economics in this blog.

(7)  Read the new book The CEO Pay Machine:  How It Trashes America and How to Stop It, by Steven Clifford, himself a former CEO.  Trust me, just read it.

(8)  The Koch Brothers are really Libertarians, trying to worm their way into the GOP because Libertarianism never got anyone elected.  (In fact, one of them was once on the Libertarian ticket as a vice presidential candidate.)  They really aren't social conservative; they're just happy to use the social conservatives to get their way.  (They'll pose as Centrists when it works for them, because Libertarians tend to avoid the Culture Wars by expressing "live and let live" ideas.)

As Libertarians, they are pro-choice.  (Or as many social conservatives would phrase it, they're "pro-abortion.")  In my more cynical moments, I wonder if their grand scheme is to offer, and even promote, abortion for the poorer in society so no one would have to pay for services for them.  (A return to Margaret Sanger's "eugenics"??)  

(9)  The Koch Brothers, who are late 70s (one pushing 80) will probably not be around to see all the havoc they've promoted, if their views hold sway.    But WE will all live with it.... including my son, whom I'm wondering if there will even be a decent student loan program for him to go to college on.

(10)  TEDDY ROOSEVELT STYLE REPUBLICANISM.  Balance between what business/labor/environmental concerns!!!!!  That should be more of a common goal as Americans.

Statues of Presidents, downtown Rapid City, SD, near Mount Rushmore

More Presidential Wisdom

Historically, taxing the rich has been supported by both parties across the ideological spectrum. Even Thomas Jefferson, whom many Tea Party members worship, supported higher taxes on the wealthy. In an 1811 letter to Thaddeus Kościuszko, he defended the tariff because it would force the rich to pay more:

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government.”  --Thomas Jefferson