I don't know why this article amuses me so, but it does. It's a young journalist's account of working 3 weeks at Starbucks in NY. She makes it sound like the gulag. I don't want to be one of those old people who one-ups every story of hardship (that's my dad's job). But when I turned 16 and was eligible to get a job, there was never a time from then on that I didn't work. And until I finished grad school and began teaching and coaching (which is terrific, but is certainly not a 9-to-5), I worked some of the "worst" jobs imaginable. I started off washing dishes and peeling hundreds of pounds of shrimp in a local restaurant at $3.35 an hour (minimum wage back then). Then I got a job driving a school bus for $5 per hour. For a short time I doubled up and did both, then traded the shrimp-peeling for bagging groceries and stocking shelves at Winn-Dixie (back to minimum wage, but more hours). I eventually got up to almost 4 bucks there. Then I worked at a lumber yard building wood trusses. (That's where I lost the end of my thumb in a multi-bladed component saw.) In college I interned in the USC legal department, which was a great job, but helped convince me that I really didn't want to go to law school, after all. The summer before I got married, I went to a temp agency and asked for whatever they could give me that paid the most so I could actually afford a honeymoon. There were some pretty ugly day-labor gigs (the one that stands out was working on a loading dock unloading 55-gallon drums that had previously contained something really nasty... in a driving rain). But the big payday came when a local plastics factory realized that they had been low-bidder on a government contract to build fiberglass buoys for the navy, and that the job was so terrible they didn't want their own people to do it. Almost $8 per hour, but I lost about 8 pounds per day in water weight, and every t-shirt I owned was eventually discarded due to the fiberglass particles they picked up. That's in addition to the chemical fumes and burns (we wore goggles and masks while working). After the wedding, in grad school I never worked less than 2 jobs (the legal gig and a graduate assistantship in the admissions office), and sometimes as many as 4 (those two, a night job in the student health center, and a brief research assistantship). Sometimes I still have nightmares that I have showed up at the wrong workplace, and it's usually one of those (and sometimes the lumber yard for some odd reason). Of course, all of that was in addition to a full courseload in grad school, and the first semester also involved resolving an incomplete on my undergrad honors thesis.
But here's the thing--at the time I never thought it was bad. Perhaps I didn't know any better. Maybe it was because gas in my '78 Mustang was worth it. I never thought, "this builds character" or anything like that. Looking back at my old Day-Timers I am amazed at the schedule I kept, but only because middle-aged me couldn't keep up with it. I do know that now it provides some perspective. Even after 18 years of teaching, I still feel blessed to get paid to do something I really enjoy. And even in those weeks when a couple of away trips on the bus stretch the work-week out to 70 hours, I'm glad that my idea of "overtime" is coaching high school sports and not delivering pizzas.
The world has changed. My oldest son is 17 and has never held a "real job." He earns some money working at school for the athletic department (running the scoreboard for JV games and such), but it's hard to walk into a grocery store and ask for a job when you have to say, "but I have basketball practice and play practice and every other kind of commitment under the sun 24-7." As soon as the spring musical is over, he'll be working (working for pay, I mean--he has worked very hard at lots of unpaid stuff). I'm afraid this young lady who wrote the article just grew up in a time when busting your butt at Starbucks represents an unusual level of hardship. Maybe it's not her fault. But it's another example of the ongoing wussification of America. If you read the article, check out some of the comments, too. They are alternately amusing and maddening.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Political Update
My buddy Mike asked not long ago, "have you picked a candidate yet?" I answered, "Yes, but I hate to spoil a blog post by telling you." So, just to keep anyone from dying of curiosity, here's my pre-primary voting plan.
First of all, I'm off the Cain Train. Not because of the allegations of infidelity--I still have zero clue as to whether any or all of those are true. But his inability to ever get a clue on foreign policy finally convinced me that he's like the dog that accidentally caught the car and had no idea what to do with it.
Secondly, although I still believe deep down that Perry must be better in real life than he is on TV, at the end of the day, you can't do a job if you can't get the job. It's like those poor guys who still think Oklahoma State should be in the national championship. They maybe should--but they blew it against IOWA freaking STATE. Likewise, Perry can't tank in three consecutive debates and expect to somehow make it to the big game.
So, like everybody else, I'm stuck with Romney vs. Gingrich. Neither is exactly my cup of tea. Either one could eventually make me regret my decision. But I'm going to stick with Romney. Here's the tortured logic--both of them suffer from a similar political affliction. They think they are the smartest guys in the room (and with some justification), and that they can operate the levers of government to make things work better than anybody else. As such, they are going to make small-government conservatives wince. I don't know which one will disappoint me the most politically, but I feel safe saying that neither one is in any way safer than the other. I actually lean toward thinking that Romney's political opportunism may work to my advantage in the current environment, as he is going to need to pander to the conservatives (and he's an expert when it comes to pandering). To quote Milton Friedman: "The trick is not to elect the right people; it is to create an environment where even the wrong people find it in their interest to do the right thing."
But the deal-breaker for me is personal integrity. At the end of the day, when either or both lets me down in a political sense, I don't want to have to look back and admit I compromised and voted for the guy with two ex-wives. Yes, Newt has asked for forgiveness. And converted to Catholicism. And a bunch of other stuff which should mitigate the situation. That's fine--and if he were a much, much better candidate than Romney, I might even be tempted to accept that. But he's not better--or at least not enough better to make me willing to sell out on such a significant matter.
That said, whichever gets the nomination will earn my vote in the general election. My conscience will not ache at all over voting for even a flawed pro-life conservative over an apparently happily-married pro-choice liberal. If the liberal in question also has his own admitted past moral failings (like cocaine use), that only makes it easier. But for now I'm sticking with the guy who has had the same wife for 40+ years, who hasn't recently changed religions (nor apparently embraced any particular flavor of theology for political advantage), and whose idea of a stiff drink is chocolate milk.
First of all, I'm off the Cain Train. Not because of the allegations of infidelity--I still have zero clue as to whether any or all of those are true. But his inability to ever get a clue on foreign policy finally convinced me that he's like the dog that accidentally caught the car and had no idea what to do with it.
Secondly, although I still believe deep down that Perry must be better in real life than he is on TV, at the end of the day, you can't do a job if you can't get the job. It's like those poor guys who still think Oklahoma State should be in the national championship. They maybe should--but they blew it against IOWA freaking STATE. Likewise, Perry can't tank in three consecutive debates and expect to somehow make it to the big game.
So, like everybody else, I'm stuck with Romney vs. Gingrich. Neither is exactly my cup of tea. Either one could eventually make me regret my decision. But I'm going to stick with Romney. Here's the tortured logic--both of them suffer from a similar political affliction. They think they are the smartest guys in the room (and with some justification), and that they can operate the levers of government to make things work better than anybody else. As such, they are going to make small-government conservatives wince. I don't know which one will disappoint me the most politically, but I feel safe saying that neither one is in any way safer than the other. I actually lean toward thinking that Romney's political opportunism may work to my advantage in the current environment, as he is going to need to pander to the conservatives (and he's an expert when it comes to pandering). To quote Milton Friedman: "The trick is not to elect the right people; it is to create an environment where even the wrong people find it in their interest to do the right thing."
But the deal-breaker for me is personal integrity. At the end of the day, when either or both lets me down in a political sense, I don't want to have to look back and admit I compromised and voted for the guy with two ex-wives. Yes, Newt has asked for forgiveness. And converted to Catholicism. And a bunch of other stuff which should mitigate the situation. That's fine--and if he were a much, much better candidate than Romney, I might even be tempted to accept that. But he's not better--or at least not enough better to make me willing to sell out on such a significant matter.
That said, whichever gets the nomination will earn my vote in the general election. My conscience will not ache at all over voting for even a flawed pro-life conservative over an apparently happily-married pro-choice liberal. If the liberal in question also has his own admitted past moral failings (like cocaine use), that only makes it easier. But for now I'm sticking with the guy who has had the same wife for 40+ years, who hasn't recently changed religions (nor apparently embraced any particular flavor of theology for political advantage), and whose idea of a stiff drink is chocolate milk.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Cain, In Context
So, now we've got this woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Cain. Not harassed, but assaulted--unwanted physical touching of an intimate nature, and with a level of crudity that surpasses any simple flirtation. And, to be clear, even if there WERE "only" simple flirtation, that would still be the kiss of death for me when dealing with a fellow who was (and is) not just married, but a minister.
But.
Yeah, there's a but. If it's true, it's damning. And I may have to eat crow down the road on this. But I still don't think it's true. We have a case of he-said, she-said. No witnesses, no evidence. We have affadavits that she told two people long ago that she felt uncomfortable, but provided no details (I cannot imagine my wife or girlfriend saying something like that and me just blowing it off). We have this story which is so darned weird--it seems like the whole scene could have been cut from some low-budget caricature of a documentary on sexual harassment. If you told me he had tried to steal a kiss, or whisper in her ear, or something like that, maybe. But straight for the crotch? Dude, I don't know any 17-year-olds whose game is that bad. And we've got the woman's personal history of terminations, lawsuits, bankruptcy, even dishonesty over paternity... and the presence of Gloria Allred. Any one or two of these would draw a presumption of his innocence from me. The preponderance of all of them is enough to send up a host of red flags.
But, they say, this is woman #4 (or is it 5?). But it's not. We have non-specific allegations of unspecified complaints, resulting in teeny-tiny settlements by a third party (settlements of a sort that indicates nothing, in most cases). Even what little we have heard, "gestures of a non-sexual nature," doesn't make any darned sense. I just can't string this guy up on such flimsy evidence. And some of the "gotcha" stuff doesn't do anything for me. When I read, "he said her story was 100% false, but they really DID meet!" I don't see that as bad at all. I think anyone with a middle school command of the English language can understand that he is denying the allegations of misconduct, and not claiming that the woman's every word is false, right down to "and" and "the."
However, here's what I'm NOT going to do. Despite the completely blatant double-standard involved, I'm not going to defend him on the grounds that it wasn't "really" harassment based on some legalistic parsing of the word. I'm not going to claim that it's OK because he complied with the Clinton "one free grope" rule, and quit after she said to stop. I'm not going to say that he was only flirting, or that perhaps somehow the woman involved led him on and then pulled a bait and switch. If Herman Cain, a married Christian man, made a pass, crude or otherwise, at this woman, then he is done, in my book.
Sadly, I don't think that's the case, at least not yet. But it won't matter. Without the help of a compliant media like Clinton had, this charge, even if proven 100% untrue, is fatal to Cain's campaign. I'm reminded of Casey Stengel's famous quote about baseball: "Can't anybody around here play this game anymore?" I think he would be a good vice-president. But it's not going to happen.
Maybe I'll take another look at Gingrich. For years I've always said he was unelectable because of demanding a divorce from his dying-of-cancer wife while she was in the hospital. Now it turns out that the story on that was completely false (once again, the lie can circle the globe before the truth laces up its boots). Otherwise, we're looking at Romney. Ugh.
But.
Yeah, there's a but. If it's true, it's damning. And I may have to eat crow down the road on this. But I still don't think it's true. We have a case of he-said, she-said. No witnesses, no evidence. We have affadavits that she told two people long ago that she felt uncomfortable, but provided no details (I cannot imagine my wife or girlfriend saying something like that and me just blowing it off). We have this story which is so darned weird--it seems like the whole scene could have been cut from some low-budget caricature of a documentary on sexual harassment. If you told me he had tried to steal a kiss, or whisper in her ear, or something like that, maybe. But straight for the crotch? Dude, I don't know any 17-year-olds whose game is that bad. And we've got the woman's personal history of terminations, lawsuits, bankruptcy, even dishonesty over paternity... and the presence of Gloria Allred. Any one or two of these would draw a presumption of his innocence from me. The preponderance of all of them is enough to send up a host of red flags.
But, they say, this is woman #4 (or is it 5?). But it's not. We have non-specific allegations of unspecified complaints, resulting in teeny-tiny settlements by a third party (settlements of a sort that indicates nothing, in most cases). Even what little we have heard, "gestures of a non-sexual nature," doesn't make any darned sense. I just can't string this guy up on such flimsy evidence. And some of the "gotcha" stuff doesn't do anything for me. When I read, "he said her story was 100% false, but they really DID meet!" I don't see that as bad at all. I think anyone with a middle school command of the English language can understand that he is denying the allegations of misconduct, and not claiming that the woman's every word is false, right down to "and" and "the."
However, here's what I'm NOT going to do. Despite the completely blatant double-standard involved, I'm not going to defend him on the grounds that it wasn't "really" harassment based on some legalistic parsing of the word. I'm not going to claim that it's OK because he complied with the Clinton "one free grope" rule, and quit after she said to stop. I'm not going to say that he was only flirting, or that perhaps somehow the woman involved led him on and then pulled a bait and switch. If Herman Cain, a married Christian man, made a pass, crude or otherwise, at this woman, then he is done, in my book.
Sadly, I don't think that's the case, at least not yet. But it won't matter. Without the help of a compliant media like Clinton had, this charge, even if proven 100% untrue, is fatal to Cain's campaign. I'm reminded of Casey Stengel's famous quote about baseball: "Can't anybody around here play this game anymore?" I think he would be a good vice-president. But it's not going to happen.
Maybe I'll take another look at Gingrich. For years I've always said he was unelectable because of demanding a divorce from his dying-of-cancer wife while she was in the hospital. Now it turns out that the story on that was completely false (once again, the lie can circle the globe before the truth laces up its boots). Otherwise, we're looking at Romney. Ugh.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Cain Train
I've got a few thoughts on Herman Cain and the GOP race that are not really suitable for Facebook. And since my buddy Kim says I need to blog more, here's an attempt.
First of all, this "sexual harassment" charge against Cain is terribly frustrating. For starters, I do not buy the argument that there is any racial component to it. There is, however an obvious party/ideological component. While it may be arguable that Cain (like Rubio) represents a unique threat on account of his race, and therefore is even more in need of a good Borking, I do not believe for a second that a white Republican would get treated any differently. If similar rumors swirled around Perry, Romney, or whoever, I am sure they would get the same treatment. However, a Democrat (regardless of race) would not. The evidence for this should be obvious: witness the wagon-circling and covering for not only Bill Clinton, but also John Edwards, and even Anthony Weiner (who, by the way, would possibly have gotten away with it if his name had been Anthony Smith).
The most frustrating thing is that the charges so far are without a single detail. There was an unspecified charge, and a realtively small settlement. Apparently there may have been "gestures of a not overtly sexual nature that caused discomfort." I don't have a clue what that means. I just cannot imagine any legitimate media source giving airtime or column space to a similar story about Barack Obama. The double-standard never fails to rile me up.
That said, if there really is any fire to go with the smoke, I don't want him, double standard or not. Yes, I know that Bill Clinton paid $800k to settle with Paula Jones over a genuine sexual harrassment lawsuit that had specific charges of behaviors that could not possibly be any kind of misunderstanding. And yes, I know that he not only survived his impeachment trial, but left office with a 60% approval rating and now enjoys elder statesman status, even though there were even credible allegations of rape against him. I also know that JFK and FDR were notoriously unfaithful to their wives, and wound up with their profiles on coins. But that does not mean that I therefore want that to be the standard. Even if Cain's problems came out through dirty pool, if he really is a lecherous old man, he won't get my vote. But I also won't throw him under the bus just yet. The law of sexual harassment is pretty crazy--as a teacher, I sit through annual updates on exactly where the lines are. Intent doesn't matter, and the standard of a "reasonable person" doesn't matter. If a "reasonable woman" can be made uncomfortable, even by an innocent compliment, you can be in trouble. So I'm withholding judgment on this issue for now.
But this issue is not what bugs me about Cain. What bugs me is that he's Ross Perot. He is a good businessman, and folksy, and likeable. And in a time when the professional politicians have so obviously screwed the pooch, that makes him very attractive. But he is a rank amateur. He apparently has not given 5 minutes thought to some of the key issues that would be key components of his job description were he to actually win--things like... all of foreign policy. I'm sorry, I think the current occupant of the White House should be fair warning to us that the presidency ought not to be an entry-level job.
And if it's not Cain, it's probably Romney. I really don't care much for Romney. Maybe it's the perfect hair, or the fact that he comes across as a guy (like George Bush 41) who was born to the job. Maybe it's the fact that he seems like Bill Clinton--a guy who will do or say anything the focus groups tell him if it will help him become president. And mostly it's because I feel like he's just another "progressive" with a different ideology--that he'll still be willing to use the heavy hand of government to manage every facet of our lives. It's still tyranny, but he's just a tyrant from the party I like better. Bah! I'd like to quote St. Ron: "In the current crisis, government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
Yet Romney does seem to be squeaky clean. And perhaps if he is going to govern by opinion poll, maybe the polls of the current population will lead him to do the right things. Maybe we can get Romney with Cain as Veep (assuming no bombshells). I could imagine Cain's instincts being a good check on Romney's pragmatism, and Romney's wonkery more than making up for Cain's inexperience. It's like Rocky and Adrian: "She got gaps, and I got gaps. But together, we ain't got gaps." And I feel certain that Cain is not too week for the second spot. After all.... JOE BIDEN. Nuff said.
First of all, this "sexual harassment" charge against Cain is terribly frustrating. For starters, I do not buy the argument that there is any racial component to it. There is, however an obvious party/ideological component. While it may be arguable that Cain (like Rubio) represents a unique threat on account of his race, and therefore is even more in need of a good Borking, I do not believe for a second that a white Republican would get treated any differently. If similar rumors swirled around Perry, Romney, or whoever, I am sure they would get the same treatment. However, a Democrat (regardless of race) would not. The evidence for this should be obvious: witness the wagon-circling and covering for not only Bill Clinton, but also John Edwards, and even Anthony Weiner (who, by the way, would possibly have gotten away with it if his name had been Anthony Smith).
The most frustrating thing is that the charges so far are without a single detail. There was an unspecified charge, and a realtively small settlement. Apparently there may have been "gestures of a not overtly sexual nature that caused discomfort." I don't have a clue what that means. I just cannot imagine any legitimate media source giving airtime or column space to a similar story about Barack Obama. The double-standard never fails to rile me up.
That said, if there really is any fire to go with the smoke, I don't want him, double standard or not. Yes, I know that Bill Clinton paid $800k to settle with Paula Jones over a genuine sexual harrassment lawsuit that had specific charges of behaviors that could not possibly be any kind of misunderstanding. And yes, I know that he not only survived his impeachment trial, but left office with a 60% approval rating and now enjoys elder statesman status, even though there were even credible allegations of rape against him. I also know that JFK and FDR were notoriously unfaithful to their wives, and wound up with their profiles on coins. But that does not mean that I therefore want that to be the standard. Even if Cain's problems came out through dirty pool, if he really is a lecherous old man, he won't get my vote. But I also won't throw him under the bus just yet. The law of sexual harassment is pretty crazy--as a teacher, I sit through annual updates on exactly where the lines are. Intent doesn't matter, and the standard of a "reasonable person" doesn't matter. If a "reasonable woman" can be made uncomfortable, even by an innocent compliment, you can be in trouble. So I'm withholding judgment on this issue for now.
But this issue is not what bugs me about Cain. What bugs me is that he's Ross Perot. He is a good businessman, and folksy, and likeable. And in a time when the professional politicians have so obviously screwed the pooch, that makes him very attractive. But he is a rank amateur. He apparently has not given 5 minutes thought to some of the key issues that would be key components of his job description were he to actually win--things like... all of foreign policy. I'm sorry, I think the current occupant of the White House should be fair warning to us that the presidency ought not to be an entry-level job.
And if it's not Cain, it's probably Romney. I really don't care much for Romney. Maybe it's the perfect hair, or the fact that he comes across as a guy (like George Bush 41) who was born to the job. Maybe it's the fact that he seems like Bill Clinton--a guy who will do or say anything the focus groups tell him if it will help him become president. And mostly it's because I feel like he's just another "progressive" with a different ideology--that he'll still be willing to use the heavy hand of government to manage every facet of our lives. It's still tyranny, but he's just a tyrant from the party I like better. Bah! I'd like to quote St. Ron: "In the current crisis, government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
Yet Romney does seem to be squeaky clean. And perhaps if he is going to govern by opinion poll, maybe the polls of the current population will lead him to do the right things. Maybe we can get Romney with Cain as Veep (assuming no bombshells). I could imagine Cain's instincts being a good check on Romney's pragmatism, and Romney's wonkery more than making up for Cain's inexperience. It's like Rocky and Adrian: "She got gaps, and I got gaps. But together, we ain't got gaps." And I feel certain that Cain is not too week for the second spot. After all.... JOE BIDEN. Nuff said.
Monday, July 4, 2011
The NY Gay Marriage Business
So long as I'm rolling, here's a few brain-droppings in reference to the recent decision by New York to allow "Gay Marriage." On the one hand, this time I'm more-or-less OK with the outcome, at least in terms of the process. The new rule was made by the duly elected legislature (even in bipartisan fashion), rather than by judicial fiat. In that sense, I can accept the new status as simply another law with which I disagree, much like the 16th, 17th, and 26th amendments. The people have spoken, and if they (we) have chosen poorly, well, they (we) get what we deserve.
That said, I still am not very happy with the process on a macro level. Much ink (pixels) has been spilled remarking on the fact that this particular decision was embraced by Republicans, and that recently, for the first time, polls indicate that upwards of half of Americans now approve of gay marriage. I feel like this evolution has been the result of some rather dishonest tactics. Way back when the Supreme Court decided the famous Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law, Justice Scalia said in his dissent that this would lead directly to redefining marriage. "Relax," traditionalists were told. It's not going to happen. Don't be paranoid. Later, when traditionalists were interested in a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage (at a time when they might have had the votes... or at least were a lot closer than we are now), we got the same story. Don't worry--the Defense of Marriage Act makes that unnecessary. Not long after there were court challenges to DOMA. And the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (itself a pro-gay law when Clinton signed it, as it removed the threat of dishonorable discharge from discreet gays). When traditionalists opposed Civil Unions as a back-door to eventual gay marriage, same story. Until, of course, the tide turned, and Civil Unions could be held up as the modern-day "separate but equal."
And why DID the tide of opinion turn? Every incremental step was hailed as a victory for tolerance and equality and modernity. Hollywood, of course, did their part. If you were to extrapolate from popular TV and movies, you would think that gays make up 20-30% of the population instead of a tenth of that. And when there were setbacks, the pro-gay side simply regrouped and charged the same hills again and again. The California Proposition 8 story is illustrative here. Every time the traditionalists won, the goal posts were moved. But this NY outcome is seen simply as the voice of the people, which should be final. I don't mind losing fair and square (well, I do mind, but I have learned to be polite about it), but I don't know of anybody who can smile when they lose a rigged game. Furthermore, the way we've gotten to this point does not do much for my confidence about any assurances given now. This NY law has a "religious freedom" clause. I'm sure that helped it pass. And considering the sum total of what has gone before, I don't doubt that it will be jettisoned as soon as the deed can be plausibly done.
Having said all of that, I think it's important to note that I don't oppose gay marriage only, or even primarily, on religious grounds. (With the one exception to that statement being that I foresee an eventual 14th vs. 1st Amendment face-off, and worry that there will eventually be limits placed on religious freedom when the young, hip, and cool gay-rights group wins out against old, boring, and square Christendom.) My big problem with re-defining marriage is that I think it is bad in the long run for society. I think the undermining of the traditional marriage relationship accelerates the decline of families and therefore society. We've already done plenty of damage with no-fault divorce and the complete loss of shame over illegitimacy. Gay "marriages" are many times more likely to not be exclusively monogamous. And once the door is thrown open to same-sex marriage, what prevents consensual adult incest, polygamy, or even straight roommates declaring themselves "married" for the purposes of tax or probate law? Please don't insult my intelligence by acting like there's no chance of that--that's what was said so long ago about gay marriage, and look where we are.
But who cares, after all? Isn't this simply about people's rights to love whoever they want? Doesn't equality trump all? I guess nowadays it does. But for most of the last 5000 years, marriage was not a license to have state-approved whoopie. It was about creating families and raising children. Marriage was what civilized men--making sure that they would protect and provide for their offspring rather than moving on to do what nature and biology wired them to do, which is impregnate as many fertile females as possible. We've already come close to destroying that model of civilization; why would we want to drive a stake through its heart?
I don't dislike gay people. Indeed, I don't like OR dislike any particular demographic group. I like a great many gay individuals, and dislike some, as well. I don't see this particular sin as being any worse than any other one (funny that we all too often are just fine with our hetero friends having sex outside of marriage, yet want to point fingers at gays as if their sin were more heinous). I'll even go so far as to say that sins of the flesh are probably a lot less corrosive than my own pride, snobbery, and hypocrisy. And when (and it's when, not if) this issue finally comes into my own circle of friends, I'll be nice about it. But I'll still think it's a bad idea. Lots of bad ideas have become law. (The lottery pops to mind!) Please don't assume I'm some sort of bigot for thinking this is one of them.
That said, I still am not very happy with the process on a macro level. Much ink (pixels) has been spilled remarking on the fact that this particular decision was embraced by Republicans, and that recently, for the first time, polls indicate that upwards of half of Americans now approve of gay marriage. I feel like this evolution has been the result of some rather dishonest tactics. Way back when the Supreme Court decided the famous Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law, Justice Scalia said in his dissent that this would lead directly to redefining marriage. "Relax," traditionalists were told. It's not going to happen. Don't be paranoid. Later, when traditionalists were interested in a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage (at a time when they might have had the votes... or at least were a lot closer than we are now), we got the same story. Don't worry--the Defense of Marriage Act makes that unnecessary. Not long after there were court challenges to DOMA. And the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (itself a pro-gay law when Clinton signed it, as it removed the threat of dishonorable discharge from discreet gays). When traditionalists opposed Civil Unions as a back-door to eventual gay marriage, same story. Until, of course, the tide turned, and Civil Unions could be held up as the modern-day "separate but equal."
And why DID the tide of opinion turn? Every incremental step was hailed as a victory for tolerance and equality and modernity. Hollywood, of course, did their part. If you were to extrapolate from popular TV and movies, you would think that gays make up 20-30% of the population instead of a tenth of that. And when there were setbacks, the pro-gay side simply regrouped and charged the same hills again and again. The California Proposition 8 story is illustrative here. Every time the traditionalists won, the goal posts were moved. But this NY outcome is seen simply as the voice of the people, which should be final. I don't mind losing fair and square (well, I do mind, but I have learned to be polite about it), but I don't know of anybody who can smile when they lose a rigged game. Furthermore, the way we've gotten to this point does not do much for my confidence about any assurances given now. This NY law has a "religious freedom" clause. I'm sure that helped it pass. And considering the sum total of what has gone before, I don't doubt that it will be jettisoned as soon as the deed can be plausibly done.
Having said all of that, I think it's important to note that I don't oppose gay marriage only, or even primarily, on religious grounds. (With the one exception to that statement being that I foresee an eventual 14th vs. 1st Amendment face-off, and worry that there will eventually be limits placed on religious freedom when the young, hip, and cool gay-rights group wins out against old, boring, and square Christendom.) My big problem with re-defining marriage is that I think it is bad in the long run for society. I think the undermining of the traditional marriage relationship accelerates the decline of families and therefore society. We've already done plenty of damage with no-fault divorce and the complete loss of shame over illegitimacy. Gay "marriages" are many times more likely to not be exclusively monogamous. And once the door is thrown open to same-sex marriage, what prevents consensual adult incest, polygamy, or even straight roommates declaring themselves "married" for the purposes of tax or probate law? Please don't insult my intelligence by acting like there's no chance of that--that's what was said so long ago about gay marriage, and look where we are.
But who cares, after all? Isn't this simply about people's rights to love whoever they want? Doesn't equality trump all? I guess nowadays it does. But for most of the last 5000 years, marriage was not a license to have state-approved whoopie. It was about creating families and raising children. Marriage was what civilized men--making sure that they would protect and provide for their offspring rather than moving on to do what nature and biology wired them to do, which is impregnate as many fertile females as possible. We've already come close to destroying that model of civilization; why would we want to drive a stake through its heart?
I don't dislike gay people. Indeed, I don't like OR dislike any particular demographic group. I like a great many gay individuals, and dislike some, as well. I don't see this particular sin as being any worse than any other one (funny that we all too often are just fine with our hetero friends having sex outside of marriage, yet want to point fingers at gays as if their sin were more heinous). I'll even go so far as to say that sins of the flesh are probably a lot less corrosive than my own pride, snobbery, and hypocrisy. And when (and it's when, not if) this issue finally comes into my own circle of friends, I'll be nice about it. But I'll still think it's a bad idea. Lots of bad ideas have become law. (The lottery pops to mind!) Please don't assume I'm some sort of bigot for thinking this is one of them.
One More Stray Thought on Economics
Wouldn't it be nice if we could truly run an economic experiment on the various philosophies out there without paying huge consequences for being wrong? With children, it's good to let them fail sometimes in order to learn the right lessons. (One of my favorite coaching quotes is, "Pain is God's way of saying, 'not like that, dummy!'") But I am unwilling to sit by and let my kids learn potentially fatal lessons the hard way.
Same thing with econ. I believe in my principles--if I didn't, I'd change them. But I'm willing to accept the possibility that I could be wrong. How to test and find out, though? Part of me would love to say, "Fine. Let's try it your way." And then when what I think are the inevitable results of bad math happen, my position would be vindicated. (Or the reverse!) Provided that we didn't wreck the whole Republic in the process, it might even be worth the pain.
However, the catch is that we pseudo-smart folks keep gaming the results. "Yes, the economy was good under Clinton, but only because of the GOP congress." "Bush caused the bottom to fall out of the economy. NO! It was Pelosi and Reid!" "Yeah, the stimulus didn't stimulate anything, but it would have been even worse if we hadn't done it." It's like dealing with conspiracy freaks (and I mean both sides). Every single piece of evidence supports our own positions, including the ones that don't!
I guess the other big problem is that the true consequences of bad math take lots of time to play out. Look at the whole housing bubble thing... it looked SO good from about 1995-2006, while the whole time the fuse was burning down.
Sigh...
Same thing with econ. I believe in my principles--if I didn't, I'd change them. But I'm willing to accept the possibility that I could be wrong. How to test and find out, though? Part of me would love to say, "Fine. Let's try it your way." And then when what I think are the inevitable results of bad math happen, my position would be vindicated. (Or the reverse!) Provided that we didn't wreck the whole Republic in the process, it might even be worth the pain.
However, the catch is that we pseudo-smart folks keep gaming the results. "Yes, the economy was good under Clinton, but only because of the GOP congress." "Bush caused the bottom to fall out of the economy. NO! It was Pelosi and Reid!" "Yeah, the stimulus didn't stimulate anything, but it would have been even worse if we hadn't done it." It's like dealing with conspiracy freaks (and I mean both sides). Every single piece of evidence supports our own positions, including the ones that don't!
I guess the other big problem is that the true consequences of bad math take lots of time to play out. Look at the whole housing bubble thing... it looked SO good from about 1995-2006, while the whole time the fuse was burning down.
Sigh...
Debt and Taxes
I keep thinking I should say (write) something about the whole debt ceiling business. I've got a few semi-connected thoughts on the topic, most of them more about the process than the philosophical side. First of all, I think that the political gamesmanship just stinks. Even if we were to hit the ceiling, the secretary of the treasury can prioritize payments so that the most important stuff gets done first. All of the scare tactics about a national default are just that. However, the political calculus is that if it comes to that, Tim Geithner would be politically smarter to hold up soldiers' pay or social security checks rather than cutting a penny of mohair subsidies, corporate welfare, or any other non-essential services. I understand how it works, but it's a great deal like a hostage situation.
Secondly, the whole notion that we can't make any spending cuts without tax increases irks me, as well. I seem to recall very recently we had a chance to revert back to the Clinton-era tax rates. Indeed, doing nothing would have caused that to automatically happen. But congress passed, and the president signed, an extension of the Bush cuts. It was the politically smart thing to do at the time. Now, it's expedient to repudiate that particular cynical move. Leaving aside whether or not taxes ought to go up, the process side hacks me off.
As for whether we really SHOULD raise taxes, that's a bit of a loaded question. I think the underlying premise ought to be that we should be willing to pay for the govenment we have. Since currently we are running trillion-dollar deficits, either spending should come down, taxes should go up, or a combination. That much is simple. And it seems so perfectly reasonable that since one side hates spending cuts and the other hates tax hikes, then splitting the difference and sharing the pain would constitute compromise.
BUT--there is one little detail muddying the waters. If raising rates resulted in direct increases in revenue, that would make pretty good sense. But plenty of data exists that tax revenue is far more dynamic than that. There is a concept called Hauser's Law which suggests that, regardless of rates, the post-WWII USA has never managed to generate more than 19.5% of GDP in taxes. So it seems like what we ought to do is find the best way to get that optimum revenue (and additionally maximize GDP), while bringing spending to the same level. That might still mean we can, even should, change our rate structure. But the notion that we can just confiscate enough cash through taxation to cover spending at current levels doesn't hold much water. There's also the issue of timing--whether any tax hike, no matter how necessary, would further cripple our fragile economic recovery. If we lower GDP far enough, even taking 25% (or 30%, or 50%) of it won't make a difference. (And as a matter of math, that's part of our problem right now--we're underperforming Hauser's Law due to the recession we've been in, with spending at about 24% of GDP and revenue in the 15% range.)
I do happen to think we need tax reform. Perhaps the debt-ceiling debate could include a provision to undertake that in a big way after immediate cuts and an increase in the ceiling happen now. The current rates WILL revert back to the Clinton levels in 2 years if left alone, after all. But there's zero chance of getting the kind of reform we need in the next month. And the reform we need isn't going to be pretty. The only real way to raise the kind of revenue we really need is to hike taxes on everybody, including the middle class. Currently nearly half of all taxpayers have zero income tax liability, and the vast majority of total revenue is derived from the very top earners. Most have heard that the top 1% pay 40% of taxes. But the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of total taxes, and the top half pay over 95%. For all the talk of millionaires and billionaires and people who make $250k, we could honestly confiscate every penny those folks earned and still not balance the budget.
I'm not one of those supply-siders who thinks that every tax cut pays for itself. I believe that the Laffer Curve is correct--that a zero percent tax yields zero revenue, and that a 100% tax also yields zero revenue (by killing the economic activity being taxed). And therefore, that if tax rates are "too low," they can be raised to increase revenue--and also that if they are "too high," the reverse should be true. I don't really think our current top rate of 35% is "too high" if we're talking about maximizing revenue. (This leaves aside the moral question of whether tax rates should have a moral upper limit.) But I do not think we can ever solve our fiscal problems without broadening the tax base.
Finally, I'm skeptical of any deal that doesn't cut spending first. If memory serves, Reagan's big tax cut back in '81 was supposed to be at least partially offset by spending cuts, but the cuts didn't exactly materialize as planned. Ditto Bush 41 when he broke his "read my lips" pledge in '88. Even during the Clinton surplus years, the surplus was a combination of increased revenue from the dot-com boom and the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War. But the overall size and cost of government never came down. (Indeed, the debt never came down, either--but that's another interesting accounting story.) We all know that taxes can be raised with the stroke of a pen, or even by inertia thanks to current sunset provisions. What we haven't proven yet is that we are willing or able to cut spending. So let's do that--eat the veggies first, and then dessert for a change.
Secondly, the whole notion that we can't make any spending cuts without tax increases irks me, as well. I seem to recall very recently we had a chance to revert back to the Clinton-era tax rates. Indeed, doing nothing would have caused that to automatically happen. But congress passed, and the president signed, an extension of the Bush cuts. It was the politically smart thing to do at the time. Now, it's expedient to repudiate that particular cynical move. Leaving aside whether or not taxes ought to go up, the process side hacks me off.
As for whether we really SHOULD raise taxes, that's a bit of a loaded question. I think the underlying premise ought to be that we should be willing to pay for the govenment we have. Since currently we are running trillion-dollar deficits, either spending should come down, taxes should go up, or a combination. That much is simple. And it seems so perfectly reasonable that since one side hates spending cuts and the other hates tax hikes, then splitting the difference and sharing the pain would constitute compromise.
BUT--there is one little detail muddying the waters. If raising rates resulted in direct increases in revenue, that would make pretty good sense. But plenty of data exists that tax revenue is far more dynamic than that. There is a concept called Hauser's Law which suggests that, regardless of rates, the post-WWII USA has never managed to generate more than 19.5% of GDP in taxes. So it seems like what we ought to do is find the best way to get that optimum revenue (and additionally maximize GDP), while bringing spending to the same level. That might still mean we can, even should, change our rate structure. But the notion that we can just confiscate enough cash through taxation to cover spending at current levels doesn't hold much water. There's also the issue of timing--whether any tax hike, no matter how necessary, would further cripple our fragile economic recovery. If we lower GDP far enough, even taking 25% (or 30%, or 50%) of it won't make a difference. (And as a matter of math, that's part of our problem right now--we're underperforming Hauser's Law due to the recession we've been in, with spending at about 24% of GDP and revenue in the 15% range.)
I do happen to think we need tax reform. Perhaps the debt-ceiling debate could include a provision to undertake that in a big way after immediate cuts and an increase in the ceiling happen now. The current rates WILL revert back to the Clinton levels in 2 years if left alone, after all. But there's zero chance of getting the kind of reform we need in the next month. And the reform we need isn't going to be pretty. The only real way to raise the kind of revenue we really need is to hike taxes on everybody, including the middle class. Currently nearly half of all taxpayers have zero income tax liability, and the vast majority of total revenue is derived from the very top earners. Most have heard that the top 1% pay 40% of taxes. But the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of total taxes, and the top half pay over 95%. For all the talk of millionaires and billionaires and people who make $250k, we could honestly confiscate every penny those folks earned and still not balance the budget.
I'm not one of those supply-siders who thinks that every tax cut pays for itself. I believe that the Laffer Curve is correct--that a zero percent tax yields zero revenue, and that a 100% tax also yields zero revenue (by killing the economic activity being taxed). And therefore, that if tax rates are "too low," they can be raised to increase revenue--and also that if they are "too high," the reverse should be true. I don't really think our current top rate of 35% is "too high" if we're talking about maximizing revenue. (This leaves aside the moral question of whether tax rates should have a moral upper limit.) But I do not think we can ever solve our fiscal problems without broadening the tax base.
Finally, I'm skeptical of any deal that doesn't cut spending first. If memory serves, Reagan's big tax cut back in '81 was supposed to be at least partially offset by spending cuts, but the cuts didn't exactly materialize as planned. Ditto Bush 41 when he broke his "read my lips" pledge in '88. Even during the Clinton surplus years, the surplus was a combination of increased revenue from the dot-com boom and the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War. But the overall size and cost of government never came down. (Indeed, the debt never came down, either--but that's another interesting accounting story.) We all know that taxes can be raised with the stroke of a pen, or even by inertia thanks to current sunset provisions. What we haven't proven yet is that we are willing or able to cut spending. So let's do that--eat the veggies first, and then dessert for a change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)