Just Add Water

Some of our relatives passing through from the beach stopped for an overnight respite.  They left with us some consumables not suitable to continue the journey.  Among those items was a half-gallon bottle of Mott’s apple juice “beverage”.  It was labeled for “tots”; however since they had no “tots” with them the appeal must have been the 40% less sugar prominently shown on the container. Understandable, but...

When I later tried some after they were gone, the taste encouraged me to investigate further. What Mott’s did to achieve their sugar (and calorie) reduction was simply to add (40%) more water to the reconstituted apple juice, which they proudly explained on the back label. They also, as an aside, added a premium price.

This, of course, begs the question; why doesn’t the consumer buy the less expensive 100% apple juice and just add their own water, getting more for less?  Why are so many people willing to accept a explanation when it blatantly works against their own best interest? There is a lesson in here and I couldn’t help but find it Trump related.

Last week Trump unveiled his much anticipated “tax plan”.  I worked in the tax field for 32 years and this one was different.

Every Administrative proposal for a new tax bill has looked like a novelette, which might still appear modest next to the 75,000 page US Tax Code (not counting regulations).  Trump’s was one page, double spaced with 13 lines of proposed changes, the rest being general intent and hyperbole.  Even then, with all its vagueness, it still made me gasp.

One reason I was so taken aback was that earlier in the day a fine, conservative friend of mine had come up to me and said “did you see how Trump’s going to lower our Taxes…how do you like that!?!”.

Now I’m confident he hadn’t read the Trump tax page, rather he probably heard discussion on talk radio or some other Conservative media source. Still, after seeing what our President had presented, I couldn’t get my friend’s sense of glee out of my mind.  I couldn’t help but see him holding up that bottle of Mott’s saying “Oh Wow…look!! Apple juice AND 40% less sugar!!!”

Who’s to blame, the Administration or the eagerly duped taxpayer?  I find myself angry at both. Yes…angry, which is something I don’t like to be.

Explaining taxes is very tough. Trying to explain (to name a few proposals) that taxing S Corporations at 15% benefits ordinary individuals unequally and is a colossal windfall for the very rich (like Trump, who manage their businesses as private enterprises), or that there is no such thing as “Death Taxes” (rather Transfer Taxes - Estate and Gift - that only affect the very wealthy), or that retaining the mortgage interest deduction while eliminating other itemized deductions and raising the standard deduction primarily benefits those people owning mega-mansions would probably result in blank stares and head scratching.

Instead of seeking to understand, Conservative taxpayers (who may also be socially Liberal) will eagerly shoot themselves in the feet because they have bought, swallowed, and digested the argument that taxes, per se, are bad…period.

Let me speak to that. You believe that taxes are bad because you think they only benefit some gargantuan government that does little good for anyone and always seeks to repress the productive individuals in our society.  Yes?  Let me point out that the size of government(s) is what it is at any given time and that in a free, relatively democratic nation you (you damned fool) ARE the Government.

You view taxes as if you lived in a feudal culture where the Lord’s henchmen collected from you daily. The fact is that in a dynamic economy the Lords don’t collect their treasures from you by taxing; they accumulate the wealth made possible by a free, large, and expensive Nation and make you pay for it, either directly or through debt. Your debt!!

The only thing they’re afraid of is that you might figure it out - that taxes are potentially the great equalizer. 

Through wealth redistribution we could fund those aspects of the economy that benefit growth, infrastructure and technology e.g. (see http://pennyfound.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-you-should-care.html).  Instead you vote as requested, to exempt the mega wealthy from possibly paying back a large portion of that wealth, preferring to allow them even greater advantage with each tax bill.

You willingly allow them to add water to your apple juice and somehow feel you should pay them for it. 

Come on Conservative America. You may be dumb, but you’re not completely stupid. Read the damned labels.  Allow taxation on those who can pay it and still remain wealthy.  Hang Grover Norquist in effigy.  It will create jobs by taking stagnant wealth and putting it to work. It will curb and reduce debt. It complements the fiscal responsibility you’ve always advocated.

The battle should be on what we are going to spend America’s income on, not where it’s coming from.  

The Lonely Center

Too often I’m saddened to leave an encounter with one or more of my Conservative friends without having some discussion about public issues.  On occasion one of them might preface conversation by declaring the doors to those topics closed.  Maybe it’s with some good reason. Experience has shown that anger is often the first by-product of sharing opinion.

There was a time (in my lifetime - maybe even in the lifetime of my dog!!) when public issues were mostly just that – public. People were less inclined to take a difference of opinion as a personal attack.  It wasn’t that heated exchange was not possible or opinion stubbornly held, but it wasn’t so defining as to personality or character.

There was also a great center where lots of folks had blended values. Certain socially “liberal” adherence combined with fiscal “conservatism”, for example.  Or perhaps relatively strict religious ethics combined with progressive entitlements.

This blend of opinion was not due to a blatant disregard for natural law or well being, but simply recognition that human beings are essentially flawed and that knowledge is often short on the facts or tardy in the understanding of evolving history.  The net result of this recognition (with interaction) can be political self-deprecation and change. Hopefully, it was change for the better.

Currently change has been supplanted by a unique kind of confrontation and it lives in the extreme ends of the political/social spectrum.  Unfortunately the extreme ends, fed by confirmation bias (an “echo” phenomenon), have been growing toward the center until the center is becoming a sparsely populated and lonely place, indeed.

As I have written several times in this blog, I peg the beginning of this current socio-political schism with the 1987 “repeal” of the Fairness Doctrine. It was a 39 year old policy doctrine of the FCC which required all licensed media to broadcast both sides of controversial issues.  It immerged out of WWII and the realization that limiting opinion was critical to the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe.

After Ronald Reagan ordered its repeal, the Democratic Congress immediately passed a law to make it permanent, but it was successfully vetoed by Reagan. Rush Limbaugh (et al) emerged from his slimy cocoon less than a year later.

No one could or would foresee the speed of communication that would transpire over the next 3 decades and its impact on bias reporting. Therefore no one in power foresaw the echo chambers that have come to define early 21^st century America.

Donald Trump is entirely the product of this echo-mania.  The biases that grew exponentially during the years from Reagan to Obama exploded like an algae bloom in 2015. Even though Trump committed or said many deleterious things (any one of which would have torpedoed a Presidential candidacy in the past) it didn’t make any difference.  His Presidency and Administration, as we painfully live through, are an obvious result of voters so profoundly bias that his antics are nothing more than white noise.

But apart from surviving Trump, how do we bring back the center and, more importantly, bring back civil discussion to public issues? Lip service has been given by both sides of the confrontation. They usually say we need to focus on those things we have in common.  It’s unfortunate that lip service to date has not been extended to advocacy

As was tragically obvious in the 1930s & 1940s and as we can see around the world today, authoritarian régimes have one important thing in common and a counter to successful democracies. They control the dissemination of mass communications and discredit (if not outright suppress) competing viewpoints. There is nothing new or magical in the understanding of that reality.

What is less obvious is the need Authoritarian governments have to thrive is to be planted in societies that are hardened and inflexible in their respective political philosophies. Pitting one side against another is the “weed and feed” aspect of echo-mania, liberally spread by Authoritarian leaders.

The United States is not succumbing to a 20^th century style of Totalitarianism. Not yet anyway. However, the embracing of those social divisions by Republican power brokers to be a bulwark against their fear of the “masses” is quite real.

They use bias communication to make use of “immigrants”, “socialists”,  “abortionists”, “environmentalists”, gun control activists, “atheists”(or anyone non-Christian), and “Liberals” in general as potential threats against national “safety” and American “ideals”.  In reality it is simply manipulation to retain power. If you don’t believe me, tune your radio to AM.

If leaders really wanted to end division they would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (or something like it) as law. It would subject opinion to the light of day and make all politicians question just who to pander to for votes. Opponents to such a law would argue it was an infringement of “freedom”.  Freedom for them is to remain deep in their dark, cavernous echo-chambers like the roaches they are.

A Dirty Nation

One of those little memories I involuntarily keep that pops up infrequently is a snippet of a conversation I had with a fine friend four decades ago. He commented to me that his younger brother actually believed his car ran better after he washed it. Despite a chuckle we shared, my laugh faded quickly to silence.  The reason was because I frankly felt the same as his brother. Mind you it was what I felt, not what I believed.

Conversely and by definition, driving around in a filthy car could (or should) evoke a sense of unsatisfactory performance or pending disrepair.

Does my car run better because it’s cleaner? If my focus due to snappy appearance is on the positive nature of what I’m experiencing then, at least for me, the answer is – (probably) yes. It is a mind game we play that requires no intellect, yet the impact on real world consequences can be profound.  I’m not talking about the slight boost to confidence caused by, say, a new pair of shoes or considering your improved net worth due to a thick, freshly mowed lawn. 

The social framework of an entire nation can be positively or adversely affected by how we view foundational aspects of that framework. Right now the Trump Administration specifically and the Republican Party generally are throwing mud all over one of our classic vehicles of national success and expecting that we will all continue to feel it is purring like a kitten.

I have written for this blog several times my strong belief that of the three branches of US government the Judiciary is the most important.  Although many (or most?) don’t see it, it is also the most fragile.  The strength of the Judiciary in the United States, more over the Judiciary in any nation or society, is totally dependent on how we, as the people of this nation, feel about it. We take those feelings and apply them to the Judiciary as either trust or distrust.

This reality is without regard to our Constitution.  Every banana republic has a constitution, but a constitution is not worth a poop if no one (or simply the most powerful) pays it much heed.

It is easy to observe the consequences of a distrusted judiciary in other nations. Whether the dirt that reigns upon a court system is caused by corruption, bribery, intimidation, propaganda, or any number of other factors the resulting penalty to those affected by that system is a decline in the rule of law. The result is government rule by force, i.e. fear.

We not only see this in other nations, but directly consider it when we travel to places where we cannot be confident that our safety is secured by a foundationally strong court system.  A person might have pause to consider the outcome of being a crime victim or falsely accused in Turkey, Algeria, Cameroon, Burma, or Paraguay. Even more modern systems such as in Italy or Brazil can suspend comfort.

Even though the American Judiciary is not flawless, nearly 250 years of general consistency and independence has allowed us to take it for granted. The flaws that occasionally surface are of individual actions that are self-serving, usually at a local level; a rogue Judge Roy Bean in a Mississippi county, for example, especially as it is affected by local prejudices.

However, the people of this Nation hold the Judiciary so sacrosanct that any corruption held to the light of day cannot hold. The fact that we frequently hear politicians howl over decisions made by the Courts is testimony to its independence.

Critical to the underlying foundation of this Judiciary is the Constitutional processes that form its body.  When Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, the Republican Senate majority made an extraordinary decision.  They chose to make the seating of a Supreme Court Justice subservient to the tides created by a political election.  Their obvious political intensions were hardly masked by their “let the people decide” justification.  Don’t insult me.

Whether intentional or unwitting, the “Founding Fathers” designed the Judiciary to specifically remove it from the political arena.  It seems if Mitch McConnell had his way we would elect nationally Supreme Court justices with all the political bullshit that would accompany such elections.  Try to imagine a Donald Trump as a Supreme Court Justice for life.  McConnell and the Senate Republicans did more than just roll the dice to stop Merritt Garland from a Senate confirmation in favor of their own choice, they crapped all over the hood of the Judiciary.

It is critical at this point that there is bipartisan participation in the choice of a Supreme Court justice.  Maintaining a 60 vote minimum is one way to accomplish that goal.  Doing so would clean the dirt created by McConnell and his supporters.  Aside from being the final arbiter for all legal decisions in this country, the Supreme Court represents what the American Judiciary stands for.  The day we accept a standard of filth in the running of that Court is the beginning of the breakdown of America’s most cherished institution.

Damned the Torpedoes

Buckle up.

In response to a provocative missile launch yesterday by North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reiterated in staccato political speak that we are no longer interested in diplomacy in dealing with the North Koreans.  Of course we have not had diplomatic relations with North Korea for decades. However, as everyone knows, the diplomacy aspect of the Korean Peninsula problem is with the Chinese.

So what does it mean? A proclamation that we (the US) will no longer "talk about North Korea" is effectively announcing the planning of military action.

The likelihood that this posturing will lead to actual military conflict is enhanced by a President who is mentally obsessed with short-term popularity. He is fully aware, for example, that waning opinion of George W. Bush in 2001 was reversed by 9/11 and continued to rise dramatically up to Bush's "mission accomplished" speech on the USS Lincoln in March 2003.  You know the rest of the story. I don’t believe Trump cares about the rest of the story.

There is good argument that increased diplomatic pressure on the Chinese, to the point of threatening economic relations between the US and China (which nether country wants), is in order to compel China to neutralize North Korea. This would include allowing the Chinese to use military measures over the North Koreans. However, the negative global aspects of Trump/Tillerson starting a unilateral hot war on the Korean Peninsula are profound.

American leadership today in comprised of self-serving amateurs. Don't be surprised if their personal interests guide our Ship of State directly toward oncoming torpedoes.