Vouch Across America / 01-28-12

Starting in 2014, as per the health care legislation enacted in 2010, help with insurance costs is coming your way.

Yep, in two years, the government will assist you financially, if necessary, through tax credits, in obtaining health insurance. If you make less than four times the federal poverty level (presently $22,350 for a family of four), that is. Cash money, direct from the evil, wasteful, God-hating federal government; cash money to help you not die.

Joking is fun. So is seriousness: I'm genuinely excited for the program to start. The uninsured are a serious financial drain on our health care system; too many bankruptcies are caused by escalating health care bills; people ought to be able to get medical care no matter their financial situation, just as a matter of principle, otherwise, what kind of society are we trying to run?

But once the government gets involved in keeping us healthy, where do we go from there? I'd like to dream, just for an evening, of a land where even more basic needs are guaranteed.

I'd like to dream of a similar voucher program that ensures every citizen has a roof over his or her head and enough to eat every night. Yes, every American, housed and fed, with a significant helping hand from the United States Treasury.

After all, if we're going to require everyone to participate in the pool of doctor's patients, doesn't it make even more sense to require everyone to have housing? Or food? Those needs are more basic than paying for pills and prevention.

Imagine with me, John Lennon-style, a nation where the poor receive a monthly government check for x dollars to defray housing costs, another check for x dollars to cover food expenses, and a third one to help purchase health insurance.

Imagine that the check for housing can only be used for housing, and so forth. Imagine that the smaller your AGI, the bigger the check. Imagine that these vouchers extend all the way to households making $100,000 annually, and that they're adjusted for the county in which you live. (Two grand's not going as far in San Jose as it is in Tuscaloosa.)

Imagine a middle-class family of four that makes $80,000 and receives, each year, $1,500 for housing, $500 for food and $4,000 for health insurance assistance.

Guess what happens when $6,000 of that family's basic needs are met in advance of all other costs? It's not hard to see that such a family avoids debt better, invests more, saves more, spends more.

And yes, there would be guidelines on how the assistance would be spent. It wouldn't be possible for a degenerate gambler to cash the housing check at a MoneyTree and blow it all on Powerball tickets. The food check would apply fully toward purchases at grocery stores but only count halfway at fast "food" joints. Fraud would be prosecuted. It could work.

I dream.

Well, maybe you're of the opinion that the rich don't deserve the "punishment" of paying for the poor and the middle class's basic needs. OK, I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. The way I see it, everyone benefits from a strong middle class, a decrease in homelessness, a more just health care system. And even if it costs the ultra-rich some extra disposable income every year, I'm prepared to defend this version of Robin Hoodness as extremely moral... on a national scale.

No, some poor dude should not be allowed to break into some rich dude's home and help himself to a few thousand dollars. But when we're talking about making sure that our poorest citizens -- those who are stuck in dead-end minimum-wage jobs, or (heaven forbid) choose to teach for a living -- have enough to feed their kids without maxing out their credit cards, then yes, I fully support an aggressive redistribution of cash money. (I like saying "cash money." Cash money. MONEY MONEY MONEY)

I will make no apologies for my fervent desire to implement a truly progressive tax system, my waking dream to see us return to the rates we had in the 1950s, with a top tax bracket at 90 percent, the upper middle class paying half their income in taxes, and Americans everywhere being helped by their government, not hindered by it.

Or, Mitt Romney can continue to pay less than me in taxes, that's fine too. Whatever. That's sustainable, ethical and desirable. Let's keep doing it that way. Yeah.

Nine-Nine-Nine Things I Like About Herman Cain / 10-21-11

You're going to assume that I made the following list in jest.

You're going to wait, and wait, and wait for the sarcastic kicker.

Well, it ain't comin. Read ahead. See?

Ha. Joke's on you. These are nine things I legitimately like about Herman Cain and his presidential campaign. What that's now? Yes, I know he's a Republican, shut up already.

1. He offers a solution to our taxation quagmire. His 9-9-9 plan isn't just an inspiration for this babblefest I call "blogging." It's an actual alternative to the mess in which we find ourselves today, wherein:

One party won't raise taxes or cut benefits;

The other wants to cut taxes but not the benefits;

Meanwhile, the deficit continues to mount, health care costs continue to rise and the safety net gets more and more expensive.

Say what you want about 9-9-9. It's gimmicky. It's too simple. It's regressive. Fine, whatever. But at least Cain is contributing to the discussion in a positive way, detailing a plan of attack, rather than delivering the same empty promises I like to call "lies."

2. He is not easily ruffled by white people calling him "brother." He's not even ruffled by white people with questionable race-related incidents in their past calling him "brother," over and over, on a national stage. In fact, if one of his rivals for the GOP nomination had once leased a hunting ranch called "N*ggerhead" for a decade, using it with his family, and that same rival had called Cain "brother," over and over, in a kinda douchey condescending sort of way, and this had all happened on October 19, 2011 during a debate in Las Vegas, Cain would have remained unruffled throughout.

That was a purely hypothetical exercise, of course, right.

3. He is pro-choice. Not personally, no -- he's on record as being strongly opposed to abortion, but he also adamantly made the case this week, in an interview on CNN, that abortion is a choice best left up to the woman, not the government.

His actual words: "It's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision."

After clarifying that he considers himself pro-life, he followed up: "I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make."

Asked if a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term after being raped, he answered, "That's her choice. That is not government's choice. I support life from conception."

(He backtracked the next day on his website. That's kind of what politicians do, though.)

4. Although I just called him a politician, he's really an outsider, which is good. Politics needs these guys. Like a '92 Perot or a Ralph Nader of any vintage, non-career politicians serve an extremely important function: they tether the lifelong insiders to the real world. Sometimes they use graphs. I like it when they use graphs.

5. Cain is black. (I know, you're colorblind, you hadn't even noticed.) Your political correctness notwithstanding, the man's race is somewhat of a coup for the Republicans, whose base, according to the latest official numbers, is:

--->103.7 percent white

--->.00002 percent Latino (that's counting W's Spanish-speaking skills and Marco Rubio, who's Cuban anyway)

--->That rich Asian-American guy

--->Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and a 99-year-old former actor in a nursing home somewhere who's still wearing blackface.

If the Republican Party is going to survive at all, and outgrow its current rift with minorities, it needs, well, nonwhite faces. And it would be good for the country, somehow, if the right-wing party was still in existence a generation from now. So, yeah.

6. He's a successful businessman. Wildly successful. He's a multi-millionaire! He was president and CEO of Godfather's, a chain he saved from extinction in the 1980's and 90's. When Cain talks money, you have to at least listen. And money troubles are kinda exactly what the nation's going through right now.

7. He legitimately thinks he has something to offer the nation, so he's following through with that notion. He didn't have to run for President. He's not on his third campaign for the Oval Office. I get the feeling he's not necessarily chasing power for power's sake, although to run for this office in the first place, it does take a certain amount of self-esteem.

8. His family story is compelling. He was raised in a lower-middle-class home, in which hard work, education and faith were paramount. Check his wiki page. And then, imagine this: his childhood values seem to have stuck. He's been married to the same woman for 43 years, he owns a master's degree in computer science from Purdue and is an associate minister at his church.

(Lots more money in the Cain household this time around, though. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

9. He beat cancer. Stage Four cancer, in his colon and liver, five years ago. He was given a 30 percent chance of survival; now he says he's in remission. You have to respect someone who takes on death, and wins. (My advisers just whispered that beating cancer constitutes merely a temporary victory. Screw that. Any effort that forestalls death is a win in my book.)

Done. Nine items, no sarcastic kickers. Granted, there is no chance I would ever cast a vote for Herman Cain, and I could just as easily make a list twice this long about things that turn me off about him. Maybe some other time.

(P.S.: I found this after finishing the post, so call it 9a. In 2009, Cain founded something called "Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement," an activist program that fights for conservative causes. Forget the agenda. The acronym spells Hit 'em, and you get to use the term "Hermanator"? Legen. Dary.)

Jim Jones 2012 / 8-14-11

I used to shake my fits at their antics, roll my eyes at their lies.

Now I just feel pity for them.

The Republican candidates for president, that's who.

Last week at the Iowa debate, they were offered a hypothetical situation in which they could defeat the deficit by passing ten times as many spending cuts as tax raises. (Ten times!) They were asked to raise their hand if they would oppose such a deal.

Hey, guess what? They all raised their hands, like the dutiful little unthinking boys and girls they've become.

Because they've been brainwashed, you see.

(I know the real answer is somewhat different. It's political suicide to declare any kind of support for any kind of tax increase with primary season just around the corner. The R's had no choice, from a strategic standpoint. Adorably, Tim Pawlenty -- who has since dropped out, to which I must add a punctuationally illegal exclamation point! -- hesitated. He recovered and shot his arm up too. But what an cute little almost-thinker he was, if only for a moment. Seriously. He quit the race three days later.)

Anyway, the brainwashed thing makes so much sense. Because here's what the Republicans said no to Thursday night: eliminating the national debt.

They didn't just say no to balancing the budget and living with the $14.6 trillion or so we now owe, paying our minimum balance of $500 billion (!!!!) every year, never getting anywhere in the long term. They said no to turning that entire balance, the one we've spent our history accumulating, into zero.

All $14.6 trillion, gone. They declined that offer.

Analogy time. They said no to this domestic situation:

I make $60,000 a year. Pleasant salary for a single guy.

Well... I pay $20,000 for housing, $10,000 in taxes, $30,000 to survive, and I'm also on the hook for $5,000 annually in the form of minimum payments on my credit cards. How long will I last at this rate? Hm.

But look! I am offered another part-time job that will cause me to make a little less at my old job, and will cut into my leisure time because I'll be working more hours, but my income will increase overall to $75,000. I'll be able to pay off my cards AND save a little each month AND treat myself to something nice again. A vacation? A new home theater? A motorcycle.

Do I say no to the second job? Not only would I be able to pay off my credit cards, but I would be able to start setting myself up for life.

And I could always quit after my financial house is back in order. The second job, the extra revenue -- I won't always need it. I just am in kind of a bind right now, and it would come in awfully handy.

Analogy over. Reality now: Instituting a new tax bracket on ultra-wealthy Americans would raise about $800 billion over the next decade. (Got some numbers from here, so I'm not totally guessing.)

Couple that with the $8 trillion in cuts that come bundled with the extra revenue, and that pesky debt plus its annoying interest is halfway gone within ten years. Not only that, but you're running a surplus now. Within another decade, the entire debt has disappeared, and you could choose to lower tax rates or expand your safety net. Both, even.

Oh, but it gets better.

You don't need a 10-to-1 cuts-to-taxes ratio to get there. 4-1 is enough. And you can cross off the debt in less than one decade. Just let the Bush tax cuts expire next year, as they are scheduled to. The federal coffers will ka-ching to the tune of $3.6 trillion more in the next ten years. And $14.4 trillion in cuts come packaged with that, remember. That's a total of $18 trillion.

Debt gone.

To recap: the Republican candidates are so committed to lower taxes that they wouldn't even raise taxes if it were only on the richest one percent of taxpayers, only by a handful of percentage points, and even if it led to reducing the national debt to zero.

Like the headline says: Jim Jones 2012, everyone!

Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)

"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)

"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)

"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)

"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)

"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)

"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

Eight Comebacks Is Enough / 12-10-10

I'm kind of not up for a full post, with research and flow and a three-point outline and all, so here are ochoremarks directed at news headlines from today.

(It's possible I may briefly stray from this blog's holy trinity of politics, spirituality and sports.)

House Democrats "Just Say No" to Tax Deal: Good for them. Someone needs to step in front of the Senate Republicans' Bus To Bankruptcy and remind us that more tax cuts for the rich is a stupidiotic and dumtarded idea. (Yes, I have a second installment of this type of headline later in the post.)

New Clothing Line Reminds TSA of the Fourth Amendment: Brilliant, I say. Check out these T-shirts that have the Bill of Rights' prohibition of unreasonable searches printed in metallic type, so they show up on the scanners. Brilliant.

Miley Cyrus Video: Partying With a Bong: Good for her. She's 18 and the stuff in the bong (salvia, not to be confused with saliva) was legal. If you have a problem with her doing this "because think of all the children who look up to her, omifreakingosh," then I have two semi-rude things to tell you. 1) Those kids aren't Miley's, so she has no responsibility in their upbringing, and 2) If you're not prepared to talk to your kids about things like bongs, then maybe you shouldn't have brought kids into this world, which contains bongs, in the first place. Maybe some other world would suit you instead.

Should You Accept Mom & Dad's facebook Request?: As a facebook-American who has recently accepted a parental friend request, I urge you to read the flow chart at the page to which I linked. Laughing is optional yet inevitable.

Gingrich Calls Assange an "Enemy Combatant": And calls the ongoing Wilileaks leaks an "act of war against the United States." I'm not a fan of Assange's crusade to expose the inner workings of diplomacy. I think his actions are ill-advised and bound to increase the instability of an already unstable world order. Lives may well be lost as a result. But do I think the U.S. should try and stop him, using force? No. I swear, for an intelligent guy, Newt is from another planet sometimes.

Tax-cut plan digs deeper deficit hole: No kidding. Ya think? That's why it was easily Baby Bush's most destructive, anti-American move. (And that's saying something.) Our unrealistically low taxes need to end at some point. And maybe the opening stages of sputtering economic recovery is not the best time for reality to set in, and for us to buck up and begin to pay our share. But the status quo is irresponsible, and practically immoral. Anything is better than our present course.

Newton should accept, then return his Heisman: Right. The Auburn QB should win the highest honor in his field, then pretend he doesn't want it? Ludicrous. (At least the blog's author admits "this won't happen anywhere but in the super-awesome dream lobe of my brain.") The sad truth is, Newton should have been suspended long ago. The NCAA rulebook states a player loses his eligibility if a person even simply *solicits* money on his behalf, let alone accepts it. Not only that, how is anyone supposed to believe that Newton's family turned down $180k from Mississippi State so the dude could play at Auburn... for free? No, sorry, the mind does not stretch that far. Go Ducks. (Blech.)

Halliburton May Pay $500M to Keep Cheney Out of Prison: This is a no-lose situation. The former "vice" president has been charged with 16 counts of bribery by Nigerian investigators. Either he stands trial or his beloved company forks out half a billion. Side note: One of the companies concurrently charged in this case already pleaded guilty to the same bribes last year and paid a hefty fine. Ah. I feel better already.

(Yes, I'll eventually post something about DADT. I'm getting there. But I have to work through some anger first.)

Give Me Taxes Or Give Me Death, Part II / 9-14-10

Well well, look who's not really serious about the deficit after all.

Republicans screaming "Save the tax cuts for the rich," that's who.

Summary: Bush tax cuts for everyone are set to expire at the end of the year. President Obama wants them to expire - for those individuals or families making more than $250k, but not for the middle class. He's fine with extending that portion of the tax cut. Republicans say they'll fight that course of action if congressional Democrats try it. The tax cuts will expire for everyone and tax rates will return to 1999 levels if no agreement is reached.

It is that simple. All other commentary is helpful, but not crucial. It comes down to, whose side are you on? And most the D's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 98 percent of the population, and all the R's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 2 percent of the population. (Follow the link. Do it.)

Looking at pure numbers, the President shouldn't have a terrible time selling his preference to Americans, except that his White House couldn't make itself look good if it invented cold fusion and brokered permanent peace in the Middle East while solving world hunger on the side.

All BHO has to say is something like this, right?

"We were a more prosperous, more responsible nation while President Clinton was in office. I believe the tax rates that were reasonable in the nineties remain reasonable now for our wealthiest citizens. George Bush's tax cuts were reckless and unnecessary, and should they survive, they would grow the deficit to an even more dangerous level. You can't have it both ways, my conservative friends. You can't spend the last two years harping on the deficit your party's presidents created, then decline to raise revenue when the opportunity presents itself in the natural way it has. Either you're for deficit reduction or against it. Time to choose. I've chosen my route, and I am proud of it, and I trust the American people to support a more responsible course of action than the one they've grown accustomed to seeing from their leaders.

"Therefore, you will join me in letting the tax cuts expire for only the wealthiest Americans. Or you will show yourselves to be the deficit enablers you have been for the past 30 years."

Instead, we got:

"But we’re still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent, where, on average, we’d be giving them $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more — which in and of itself would be OK, except to do it, we’d have to borrow $700 billion over the course of 10 years. And we just can’t afford it."

It's a start. But we're not in a wrestling match, Mr. President. A power struggle you should be winning, but aren't. Yet. Partly because there are five numbers in that sentence. And while I followed what you were saying, most people tuned you out after $100,000, before you got to the important part: the "we just can't afford it" part. That's the lead. People understand "we can't afford it." Nowadays, it rings true and urgent. Start there, mix in a jab about how Republicans only care about the deficit when it gives them an excuse to block legislation aimed to help the middle class, then give numbers for support.

(I sound arrogant, but mostly I'm just annoyed with how the facts and public opinion are on the D's side and yet the fight goes on.)

Here are some more encouraging responses from Democrats, all from Massachusetts.

Rep. Michael Capuano: “We either have to give Republicans everything they want or they’ll take their ball and go home? Well, go home then."

Rep. Jim McGovern: “I would be happy to listen to any ideas that my Republican friends have that won’t explode the deficit and which would actually help create jobs — like tax credits for small businesses and incentives for manufacturing.’’

Rep. Richard Neal, a key member of the House Ways and Means Committee: “If there’s a compromise that we can live with that protects the middle class, I’m open to it,’’ adding he wants to dedicate revenue from expiring tax cuts to begin to pay down Iraq war debt.

Let's see if THAT message gets out.

Give Me Taxes Or Give Me Death / 9-5-10

There are only three options left.

Either we:

1. Raise taxes to pay for our social programs;
2. Reduce entitlement benefits drastically for all citizens, beginning now;
3. Install some combination of 1. and 2.

All other paths, including our elected officials' perennial favorite, 4. Stay The Course, lead to financial ruin and the end of the nation as we know it.

I'm sick and tired of 4.

I want 1.

I want more taxes, and I want them yesterday. I want the rich to pay more than the non-rich, because the reverse is cruel and ineffective. And I want the media to expose relentlessly how lower taxes are only possible if we aggressively slash Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and every other bit of spending the government undertakes.

There exists no option 5., called "Cut taxes and pretend we can save money in the great 'elsewhere' of the federal budget. Like foreign aid. Or 'waste.' Or earmarks. Or pork." That plan's not viable, not possible, and it's high time its predetermined failure was properly publicized. We can't have social programs and low taxes. And anyone who claims otherwise should be ridiculed as an untrustworthy power-hungry liar. There is no room in the budget for that reckless financial fantasy.

Anyone who claims we can trim government revenues without touching the social safety net's benefits is unfit to lead the country.

I have numbers.

Medicare/Medicaid costs 779 billion annually.
Social Security costs 694 billion.
National defense and wars set us back 680 billion.
Federal pensions: 195 billion.
Foreign aid checks in between 20 and 25 billion.
Earmarks? 17 billion.

(These stats can be found all over the Internet at all sorts of nonpartisan places. You can dislike them, but you can't quibble with them.)

If every earmark and all bits of foreign aid were eliminated from the budget every year, we'd make a hole in the overall debt of less than one-third of percent, which would be instantly gobbled up the following year by the interest on our new debt anyway. That's assuming we kept tax rates stable.

The government (federal and state) receives about $3.34 trillion annually in taxes. The debt has grown by at least $500 billion annually since 2003.

We need to pay more taxes, or we need to tell our seniors and our poor to forget half their entitlements.

Or we could not go to war, ever. Or defend ourselves against anyone, ever. Or provide any basic services, ever.

Only a combination of higher taxes and lower benefits, or simply higher taxes, will save the nation from insolvency, followed by skyrocketing interest rates, followed by partition of the United States of America.

I like America. I love America. I don't wish her death. I'd like my grandkids to be Americans, not Pacificans.

Either way, if we want the country we have, we're going to get higher taxes. And if that's going to happen, I'd just as soon we were the kind of people who support their citizens appropriately in their infirmity and old age.

I am completely, unapologetically requesting to have my taxes raised as soon as possible. Well, not just mine. Everyone's. Mine don't stand much of a chance in a cage match with a $20 trillion, $30 trillion, $60 trillion national debt. (We're at 13.4 trillion and counting.)

I'm not poor. I won't win some sort of personal mini-lottery from a system that ensures survival of the safety net.

I'm also not rich. I can't afford a lot more in taxes. I can barely afford the ones I have to pay right now.

I'm also not at all bothered by the prospect of system fraud. I believe we should catch welfare cheats and Social Security scammers, make them perform loads of community service and fine them heftily, because I'm willing to let the police chase down the guy who does 55 mph in my residential neighborhood rather than petitioning to have the speed limits revoked.

I am bothered, now to the point of seething anger, by the notion that our present borrowing levels and deficits are OK.

I am bothered tenfold by the notion that REDUCING the government's revenue is somehow the answer. Especially when a politician says -- lies -- that we can trim the fat from a bloated budget while cutting taxes. Unless that politician specifically calls for steep cuts in our entitlements programs alongside those irresponsible tax cuts (and I mean steep cuts, on the order of 30 or 40 percent), then you can assume said politician is misleading you.

It is critical that persons with megaphones call out those who would lead America to the financial precipice. And that we call out the media for not doing its job in this arena. Its job, in this case? Forcing politicians to address the issue, but not in generalities. Asking the questions that expose empty promises and unrealistic so-called solutions.

Is my anger visible enough?

Anyway. When my debt reaches dangerous levels, and it has done so at times because my career path has been... voluptuous, those are the times I curtail my spending, rework the terms of the debt if I can, and find ways to make more money. If I don't end up doing at least one of those things quite well (and probably two at a time are necessary), I run the risk of losing my house, my cars, then being forced to skip two meals a day, and even then, I might still be crushed under the consequences if I'm not careful.

While I realize personal finance guidelines don't always apply on a national scale, the moral from the previous paragraph is that there is a limit to how much debt you can handle without it crippling you. If one individual finds that tipping point, trips over it carelessly and is broken by the circumstances, that's a tragedy. If that were to happen to a whole country, we'd need a new word to describe such an inconceivable event.

Why would we even want to come close to that point?

I will enthusiastically support an influential politician who realizes I can handle the truth, then tells me something like this:

"The days of easy entitlements are over. Financial realities dictate that we must cut benefits and raise taxes, or risk our very sovereignty. Prudence dictates that we start down that road sooner rather than later.

"I wish it were not so, but wishing won't make the facts go away. I am no longer willing to pretend that a crisis does not loom on the horizon. Please join me in an era of sacrifice that will strengthen the long-term financial prospects of the Unites States of America while preserving the principles for which she stands.

"If you want to be mad at me for telling it like it is, go ahead. But I'm going to be part of the solution, not the problem, and the solution incorporates, without a doubt, higher taxes for all Americans. My hope is that you, whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative or in between or neither, that you will journey with me down the road that saves our very nation. Thank you."

Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

How Long / 12-15-09

I promise, this post is tangentially connected to politics, so it's not off-topic.

Because breaking my own self-imposed rules would be rude. To me.

Below lies a list of institutions present in our society. Next to each rests two figures; the first one is that institution's age, while the second is the percentage of the lifetime of our nation that the institution has existed. Finally, I post a bit of trivia about each item.

(I count the "birth" of the nation as the moment all 13 states ratified the U.S. Constitution. That was in May 1790, 209.5 years ago.

Enjoy!

Google / 11.25 yrs / 5.4 percent
"Originally the search engine used the Stanford website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. They formally incorporated their company, Google Inc., on September 4, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California." (Culled that from wikipedia. Didn't google it.)

Twitter / 2.67 yrs / 1.3 percent
"The [company's] projections for the end of 2013 were $1.54 billion in revenue, $111 million in net earnings, and 1 billion users." (OK, again from that wikiplace, gotta find a new source.)

Ratification in Mississippi of the 19th Amendment, allowing women to vote / 25.67 years / 12.7 percent
Text of the highly objectionable amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." (Hey, that's the actual text of the amendment, NOT from wikiwiki.) Oh, incidentally, Mississippi legislators also generously made some time to ratify the amendment declaring slavery illegal... in 1995.

50 U.S. States / 50.33 yrs / 24 percent
Hawaii's state flag includes a Union Jack in the upper left corner.

"The Simpsons" / 20 yrs / 9.6 percent
The first episode aired 12-17-89 and was named "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire."

"The Price is Right" / 53.5 years / 25.5 percent
More than 7,000 episodes have aired.

High Fructose Corn Syrup / 44.67 yrs / 21.3 percent
"The average American consumed approximately 28.4 kg (63 lb) of HFCS in 2005." (Yes, wikipedia, you got me.)

Social Security / 74.33 years / 35.5 percent
The program has collecting its own check for a little more than nine years now!

The Federal Income Tax / 96.83 years / 46.2 percent
I know, sometimes it feels like 46.2 percent. But from 1952-53, if you made more than $400,000, your tax rate was... wait for it... oh yeah... 92 percent. Good times. (Incoming President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, predictably lowered it to 91 percent through 1960. Tax cuts. Sheesh.)