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.

Another Death in Vietnam

My brother Bobby was killed in Vietnam. We didn’t know it at the time, for that matter nether did he. It took 43 years for the herbicide that entered his body at age 21 to end his life. The Agent Orange causing the particular lymphoma that killed him was just as reliable as the bullets, bombs, accidents, and illnesses that took the lives of the 58,220 Americans that were recorded as dead “in-country” during that military engagement.

There’s undoubtedly no accounting of what the real number of Americans lost was, any more than the incomprehensible number of non-Americans who died with them and since. There’s also no telling when it will end.

Lately I am weighted with pangs of responsibility in realizing I am of the last generation of Americans to remember firsthand what we as a nation were experiencing at that time, roughly between the years 1965-1972. What should I be sharing…what should I just forget?

The historical experience of World War II was quite different, as I was taught by my father’s generation and in countless stories and films.  There was near total engagement by the American population. Even with carnage that pales all military conflicts that have followed; the unification toward a common goal resulted in a remembrance that is mostly Romantic. The somewhat unique American post-war euphoria that resulted from that Romance is the “Great” in Donald Trump’s “Great Again”.

Vietnam was essentially its antithesis.  It was ill-conceived, non-transparent, over-weighted in politics, ultimately divisive, and too easy to discount and disregard.  If it weren’t for the existence of a draft carried over from WWII and Korea, the whole conflict might have been relegated to second page news and its opposition might have more resembled our recent fiasco in Iraq.

Thankfully the lessons it left are not clouded in Romance and their relevance has never been more important than they are today in Trump’s America.

What I remember from the Vietnam War era and how it relates to 21^st century America is not the foolish ideological tools that were used by equally foolish leaders to begin and sustain the conflict. What I’m recalling is how the nation reacted to that foolishness daily and why. Such was the national response to the War that lunacy became lucid and, therefore, insulated from reason.

The presentation of the Vietnam War to the American people was insidious.  It started slowly, utilizing the undercurrent of manufactured fear of Communism to justify deaths and injuries.  Long before the devastation of the Conflict reached its height, the bullshit of falling dominos to the “Red Peril” vanished. It simply became a “them vs. us”.

News reporting on the War basically folded into the routine of people’s lives.  There was little to report daily other than the number of dead and wounded, and where in that little country it occurred. In 1968, an average of 46 US soldiers were killed every day, with 6 to 8 times that many wounded or injured…every day. The Pentagon and the White House released whatever they could to make it sound acceptable. The most common was to list North Vietnamese (and Vietcong) killed and wounded in numbers so large the accounting was not believable. But few expressed skepticism and it was hardly questioned.

You see, as a Nation, we got used to it. Protesting was considered unpatriotic and didn’t really take hold among ordinary Americans until the 5^th year of the War. Nixon was elected in 1968 by the “silent majority”.  Like Iraq, if people didn’t have someone in the conflict the news of the War was just and only that. The current day's news made yesterday's vanish into desert air.

Donald Trump has not (yet) drawn us into an extended military conflict, thankfully. His “playful” attitude regarding nuclear weapons gives pause, but for now the lesson of Vietnam doesn’t actually relate to how we are reacting militarily.  It relates to how we as a nation are reacting to the fundamental functioning of government.

If Donald Trump feels he has a mandate it is based on an irrational concept that he was elected to dismantle whatever he can and by whatever means he is able.  He has no more ideological basis for his attack on the existing US Government than Johnson or Nixon had in perpetuating the Vietnam War.  He is freewheeling and his disabling narcissism has resulted in him being surrounded only by his family and those who were loyal when anyone with a half a brain viewed him as scary clown.

The truly serious problem is that the Nation and the media have gotten used to it. His and his administration’s bizarre actions have become habitual and routine. There have been so many instances of disinformation, distasteful antics, subversive behavior, incompetence, nepotism, pandering, lying, and psychosis over the course of the election and the first few weeks of Trump’s term no one is keeping count anymore. And those are just the public ones.

Nearly any one would have torpedoed a prior administration.

Just like another death in Vietnam, the next Trump shoe to drop hardly moves the meter, and even then only briefly.

The danger is that complacency to incompetence, indecency, corruption, and (most of all) dishonesty may take many years to undo. In nations that find difficultly in thriving, these factors seem often insurmountable, especially where public division is encouraged.

We should be raging against legislators who think they can personally benefit by supporting this dangerous new “normal” and to media moguls who are devoted first to ratings.  To want and expect something better from government we need a better government, not its elimination in favor of some kind of chaotic oligarchy.

Reject any legislator who supports Trump, restore the Fairness Doctrine (ended in 1987), and seek with an open mind to understand why overall health care in the United States (and ONLY in the United States throughout the developed world) is an abject fiscal failure.

We don’t want another Vietnam lingering around for another four decades or longer.  

A Dead Rose By Any Other Name

Let’s try to get this straight…again. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, is primarily a health care concept first proposed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1993 to counter, along with other Conservative initiatives, the health care plan delivered to Congress by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The idea of Obamacare having its origins in Conservative lore is repugnant to Republicans. Their challenges to that history at best persuaded Politifact to rate the Heritage connection as only half-true. Politifact hung the “untrue” portion of that rating on fact that the proposal did not have universal Republican support. Of course, no other proposal did either.

I disagree with Politifact. The argument that the ACA wasn’t a Republican plan may have some legs, but to suggest that the origins were not Conservative is ridiculous.  Talk to Mitt Romney.

The delivery of health care in the US is unique in the modern, developed world. To my mind it was a natural result of how nations around the world recovered from the devastation of World War II. The US was the only major participant in the War to end it without homeland destruction.

Other nations were forced to construct health plans that were centrally controlled in order to serve dislocated and impoverished populations. The clearest example of this was the universal health plan created by the United States for the Japanese people in 1946. It was a plan US Conservatives today would label as Socialist mania. The Japanese, on the other hand, have been quite satisfied ever since.

The US after the War was more concerned with economic growth and finding the people to fuel that growth. People were making money and, frankly, health care wasn’t that expensive. Employers, in order to attract and retain labor, began to offer complete health care as a benefit of employment.  Health care slowly became an industry, and, like all industries, the measure of success was defined by profit.

Flash ahead 60 years and we find (which should be to the surprise of no one) that health care in the US cost multiples more than any other place on earth.  Given the expense, access to health care has been reduced or eliminated for large segments of the population. Yes Houston…we have a problem.

Conservatives however have an additional problem.  As they support and represent those on the receiving end of the multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth (the health care “providers”) they needed to come up with some kind of plan that would increase access, reduce cost and still deliver satisfactory profits to the providers. By any standard, Obamacare does just that…well, except for the “reduce cost” part.

You see, Republicans and Conservatives generally have an almost religious zeal for Capitalism and supply-side economics. They feel if you give people enough choice the cost will find its naturally low level. They also tentatively accepted the idea of forcing everyone into the pool, i.e. the individual mandate.  The problem, of course, is that health care is a totally inelastic (service) commodity; the demand does not drop no matter how high the price goes up. Further, the choice of provider is generally not impacted by cost. You all know this. When my kid is sick I’m not going to go shopping down to Wal-Mart to see if I can find a doctor on clearance.

The Democrats knew this too, so they bet it all on including one additional factor into their 2010 plan – the Public Option.  This would have been essentially a “buy-in” Medicare, and if enough people chose it, it would have allowed the Federal Government to begin to have central control of pricing services, and likely force private insurers to match those costs.  However, in order to be politically successful the Obama Administration caved in (thank you Joe Lieberman), the Public Option was dropped, and the 1993 Conservative Heritage Foundation plan morphed into law.

So why don’t the Republicans and Conservatives want to keep Obamacare?  Why did the Republican House vote to repeal the law over 60 times? Why don’t they vote to repeal it now?

This is what I believe: I believe the primary thing they want to repeal is the name. Republicans named it Obamacare because they wanted to use it as a political wedge. Now they’re faced with eliminating a plan which is more closely aligned with their moneyed constituency than anything else they could devise. However, they can’t embrace it now. My God…it’s called Obamacare.  They named it. They’ll never get rid of that name unless it’s significantly revamped.  Yes Houston…they have a problem.

Obamacare was a step in the right direction. Access to health care was greatly improved and financial devastation as a result of ill health was curbed.  It was destined to fail in the critical area of cost; however no more than what was occurring prior to its inception.  It needed a back door to centralized control of cost. Even if Conservatives can find a way to change the name or simply take us back to the melee we came from in 2010 the problems will persist.  

Until the electorate begins to vote in their own best interest, and not unwittingly support the big dollars that profit from the obese health care industry, nothing is going to change. The dead rose that is Obamacare will smell just as bad and likely worse, with whatever label they choose to use.

It was American ingenuity that created the Japanese health care system and for me I think Cherry Blossoms smell just fine.

Steve Bannon: America's Joseph Goebbels

Using Nazi Germany to make current day comparisons is essentially a cottage industry within the extreme ends of the political writing community.  It rarely makes much sense.  For all the hate leveled against Obama for his, supposed, liberal-socialist-left leanings there was at least an equal number of portrayals of him as Hitler incarnate.  Actual history is seldom a source for expressing emotions.

Now we have Trump, and once again Hitler “similarities” are trucked out as a means to convey emotions.  The reason is obvious…simplicity.  Trump and Hitler, it says it all in three words. Trump is evil for all the reasons Hitler was evil, or so it might go, just as it was leveled against Obama. For the most part we have become a nation that likes our observations limited to 15 second sound bites or 140 character Tweets.

Obama was not a Hitler, Trump is not a Hitler, and America is not the Germany of 1932-1939.

The real loss, however, is not the mischaracterization of the United States or its leaders with Nazi Germany.  What we lose is a perspective on how history actually evolved and the genuine lessons available to us as we plod through the making of our own history.

Nazi Germany provided a wealth of information on human interaction because of the dramatic and devastating consequences of the actions taken by that government over a very short period of time.  The more apt characterization would be that of a disease that broke loose from modern social immunities and brought humanity to its knees.

However, just because a Nazi Germany is more than unlikely in an age of trans-global economic interests and potential nuclear warfare, it doesn’t mean that symptoms of the social disease that infected the world in the middle of the last century are not present today. The US has gotten the sniffles and it looks like it’s going to get worse.

Fascism simply defined is the use of ethnically cleansed Nationalism to sustain authoritarian control over an economy consisting primarily of private property (typically managed in the hands of few people or institutions).  It gained popularity in the 20^th century as a reaction to both un-tethered free enterprise (which bore the depression of the 1930s) and liberal social change, which was viewed as a disenfranchisement of Christian Caucasians.

Compared to the 1930s, especially in Europe, we in the US currently live in a time of unprecedented prosperity, as do most Western nations.  Nevertheless, the new President, both before and after his election, has lectured unceasingly about how retched and pitiful conditions are in the US. In my world I have not encountered a single “Make America Great Again” supporter who had any legitimate personal reason to yearn for the past (other than to simply be younger).

The historical lesson to be learned from Nazi Germany (circa 1933-1939) is that using ethnic and nationalistic arrogance to combat trumped up fears (excuse the pun) works, and people like Steve Bannon know it.

Joseph Goebbels was Hitler’s head of the Propaganda Ministry in Nazi Germany and Hitler’s closest advisor, staying with him till they both committed suicide in their famous Berlin bunker in 1945. Highly educated (PhD), he adopted a successful plan to control information regarding Hitler and the internal enemies Hitler used to promote fear (i.e. Jews, homosexuals, atheists, Gypsies, the mentally handicapped, and Slavic people generally).

Whether Goebbels believed any of the hate propaganda he formulated is speculative at best. But no matter, he loved the power and influence it brought. It was self-fulfilling.  Paradoxically, the better life for the average German got, the more the manipulation worked, eventually leading him and Hitler to convert domestic power into military conquest and devastation.

The similarities with Steve Bannon are compelling, even if Bannon only resembles a Jr. Whopper on a Facist menu.

Bannon (63) is reasonably well educated and, after a short stint in the Navy, gained modest success and valuable production experience in the film industry. Early in his 50s he began to produce documentaries directed at Right-Wing ideologues that resonated with the Clinton-haters in the 1990s. In that effort he crossed paths with Andrew Breitbart, a young far-Right Conservative publisher who reportedly (and interestingly) compared Bannon to the talented Nazi propagandist filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl.  

Later Bannon (and others) teamed up to create Breitbart .com, a web far-Right “news” site that is now associated with the so-called “alt-Right”. It later included talk radio.  After Breitbart’s premature death, Bannon took over Breitbart,LLC and, with emphasis on conspiracies and anti-“Liberal/Government/non-Christian” topics, extended its appeal. Without going into detail, let’s just say it made for fun conversation around the table at a Skinhead Thanksgiving.

Bannon put increased emphasis on Nationalistic and anti-Islamic rhetoric to increase his “market share” of the Conservative echo chamber. However, he is exceedingly unappealing physically, with a comportment that would fit in nicely with life lived beneath a bridge. He needed a Donald Trump. It is likely he saw an upside to an alliance with Trump whether Trump won the election or not.  You might remember there were active news leaks about a possible Trump Channel after a Trump loss.

Trump’s recent Twitter fit about Bannon pulling his strings is understandable. Hitler would have reacted the same if it had been suggested that Goebbels was running the ship of State.  Narcissists can never accept that kind of submission of their egos.  Still, if a husband only does what his wife whispers to him it begs the question of who is in charge.

Again, we are not living in a failed republic as was Germany in 1934. A majority of us actually hate Trump and it’s more likely than not that number will grow.  Still, history of what occurred during periods that were larger than life should retain value.  They tell us that while Steve Bannon is in place we will continue to see the effort to discredit the media and inflame fears.  Whether it’s terrorism, the Courts, Muslims, gun-grabbing Liberals, villainous voters, or bathroom identity we are in for a whirlwind of disinformation. 

Bannon is going to try to grab this Nation by the Goebbels. I don’t think it’s going to work.

Manchurian Candidate?

For those not familiar with the term, Manchurian Candidate has become a phrase to reference individuals in high office controlled by a foreign entity. Coined by the book of the same name by Richard Cordon in 1959 (followed by two films), Cordon described an attempt to overthrow the US Government with the use of a brainwashed, sleeper agent-assassin by the Chinese and far Right-wing US government officials.  American heroics win out in the end (of course).

Such stories make for good thrillers, but reality tends to have fewer thrills and more tendencies to plod through traitorous or witless waters.  Modern history shows that subversive intensions may resemble thriller plotlines, but the means to get there (if ever) end up being just so many rolls of the dice.

Lately it’s beginning to appear that Vladimir Putin has been rolling a lot of dice.

An important thing to remember about Russia (I’m talking to you Lindsey Graham): the ideological cold war is over.  The use of Communism as a means to vilify Russia (or China for that matter) is done – stick a fork in it. It was never truly valid anyway since the USSR or China never trucked out a political or economic system that even bared a resemblance to Marxist Socialism.  However, embracing a bogus ideological conflict certainly worked for stirring up the natives on both sides.

Russia, a nation of 144 million people (40% the size of the US), is not our enemy, any more than we are theirs.  We are in competition with them for resources and influence and it’s weighted immensely in our favor.  It’s just unfortunate that hanging over that competition is enough destructive force to destroy humanity many times over.

Russia has continued to embrace a strong authoritarian central government with severe controls (including violence and terror) over internal dissension.  In Ancient Rome this might have worked pretty well, but in modern times such a political system has had short-term success at best. Nevertheless, it looks like the US has taken a giant step in the same direction, and for Putin that works out just fine.

The US economy is mammoth compared to Russia’s.  Russia’s economy (by GDP) is just slightly bigger than Mexico’s (Russia 13% larger), and considerably smaller than Canada’s. The US economy by comparison is 1700% larger than Russia’s.  Putin has no field on which to compete with the US except perhaps in oil, vodka and caviar…well, maybe just caviar.

So what are the thriller-plot intensions of V. Putin anyway? Internally he personally wants to retain power and make money, both of which he is succeeding to do, often times with KGB style brutality and censorship. It has been reasonably estimated he has amassed personal wealth in the tens of billions of dollars.  His influence is self evident. However, in order to maintain both goals, his external aim would logically be to expand his pie (e.g. Ukraine & Georgia) using his disproportionately large military, and neutralize the West (e.g. USA) from interfering.  This is where he starts rolling the dice.

Now just suppose he obtained compromising information and/or documentation on Donald Trump. Even Mr. Spock would find it logical to believe it would be common practice for the Russians to obtain dirt on any high profile Americans they could, especially those who actually spend time in Russia. What kind of gigantic egos do you think might be susceptible to falling prey to that kind of scrutiny? Let me guess…roll the dice.

Perhaps seeds were planted or it was serendipity for Putin, but you can guess he possibly (likely?) went into a Soviet style happy dance when he saw Trump riding down that escalator.  Like everyone else though (including Trump) he probably didn’t believe Trump could win the Presidency, but what the hell…roll the dice.

Hacking Hillary and getting caught was a reasonable gamble with a limited downside, a good roll of the dice. Still, what other assets has Putin used to advance the possibility of a President Trump?  The flattery was useful and I’m sure it was breaking them up with laughter in the Kremlin as they listened to Trumps comments, but what backdoor efforts might have been made to make the White House a partially owned Russian subsidiary?

As yet we don’t have any hard verification, but the circumstantial evidence continues to mount up.

With Trump’s campaign for the nomination floundering under the amateur management of Lewandowski, how did Trump come up with savvy Paul Manafort who successfully took the Trump campaign through its Mid-Atlantic one-two punch?  Just as mysteriously, when Manafort’s strong connections to Russia started to generate scrutiny he was summarily fired and disappeared (note Lewandowski remained within Trump circles).  Should we wonder who really fired him? Did Trump ever fire The Apprentice who sold the most hotdogs? I think not - roll the dice.

Now when the impossible has became reality and Putin basked in the glow of success (note his response to further US sanctions was to invite American children to his Christmas party), we start to get wind of, perhaps, some of that earlier craps rolled via Britain’s Mi-6 straight into FBI addendums. Did the Russians manage to squirrel away some nasty stuff on The Donald years ago? Why would we think that?

Mike Flinn as the new National Security Advisor is one reason. He was so comfortable in his relationship to the Kremlin that he got on the phone to “do nice” with the Russian ambassador right after sanctions had been levied against them. But even more compelling is the odd-ball choice of non-diplomat, ex-CEO of Exxon Mobil Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, who is so honored by Putin as to receive their highest non-Russian award; the Award of Friendship.  You can just feel the love.  

Note that in any world we all thought existed, Tillerson’s relationship to Russia would have totally disqualified his appointment as head of the State Department.  That Republicans have jumped ship from that world we knew is gut-wrenching.

Do I think that Flinn or Tillerson are sleeper agents worthy of their own episode on The Americans?  Frankly no.  Still, these are men whose opinions regarding the US relationship to Russia will matter more than Trumps, as the TV-schooled, Twitter King makes good on his promise to defer the running of the Nation. When Russia continues to expand its control (e.g. Ukraine), don’t look for Tillerson, as the leader of US foreign policy, to join with European condemnation.

Was Donald Trump a Manchurian Candidate? Not in a Hollywood sense, except perhaps if you could inject a Manchurian Candidate into a Three Stooges movie. However, to the extent Russia is holding some filthy dirt on The Donald (which I personally believe is likely) and, of course, has the evidence of their relationship, it may make Trump as close to a Manchurian Candidate as Putin could hope for.

Incredulous?

I am dumbfounded by the media response to the beginning of the Trump administration. As much as I wanted to continue a hiatus from writing about anything Trump, I am drawn to express the obvious. Am I alone in my observations? Let me know.

One might think it a Republican strategy to cloud the news of the far Right-Wing executive actions and hiring by the President in these first days by his making irrational pronouncements on such things as crowd size and the election results. I think that is only coincidental. The policies that Trump is signing or the people he is nominating are likely not generated by him. He simply doesn’t have the knowledge to do so, a reality he demonstrated repeatedly over the past year and a half.

His comments about factual circumstances that directly affect the perception he has of himself do, however, come directly from him, probably to the consternation of those looking to control the White House.

I have listened to media reporting and subsequent discussions about his off-handed, Tweeted, and official explanations (from Sean Spicer) stating his “belief” that the crowd size at his inauguration was the largest ever and the true popular vote count exceeded Clinton’s.  They (the media) express themselves as if it were a point of wonderment. “Why is he doing this (?)” is a constant remark, as if it were a departure from everything we have experienced to date.

The remarks (from the media) are framed in a way to make it appear that Trump has some kind of rational, self-interested purpose in taking simply odd-ball positions on these facts of little consequence.  Opponents of Trump want to frame the observations as displaying his diabolical desire to lie in order to achieve his own ends. Both conclusions are as off-balance as the Trump pronouncements themselves.

For reasons having nothing to do with Trump, I have spent considerable time trying to learn what I could about the condition known as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).  I concluded well before the tragic election that Trump has this disorder, and it is not as simple or innocuous as people may casually believe.

Narcissistic behavior is as common as running water. It affects, to some degree, virtually everyone (barring the occasional Mother Teresa).  However a NPD is relatively rare, existing at the far end of narcissistic behavior spectrum.  It is considered to exist when the patient is controlled by the condition in such a way as to conflict with reason or rationality.

No media organization wants to suggest it, but it is reasonable by the public evidence to conclude that the man just made President of the United States is mentally ill.  He has a condition which can only be managed with the combination of his acceptance of the condition and professional medical treatment. It is hard to imagine either taking place.

What does this mean? What are the possible consequences?

Donald Trump does not arrive at the bizarre conclusions that he does because, as many recognize, he has a colossal ego. He disputes obvious facts, such as number counts, because he does not recognize that he could be the cause or reason for what appears, on the surface, to be a failure. He cannot help this. If he cannot find a specific individual to blame (real or imaginary) then his only recourse is to shoot the messenger.

The consequences of a person with a NPD in such a powerful position, to my mind, range from muddled to truly frightening governance.

The American Presidency is simply a hot caldron of events for which some, if not substantial, conflict of opinion always exists.  The fact that we can see a President virtually age dramatically before our eyes is no accident.  Trump’s future reaction to critical opinion should be predictable, as should the subsequent reactions of his handlers. The first and most obvious will be the opaqueness of his administration.  This is already happening and we’re only days into his term.

The Trump administration will implode into a black hole of non-information provided to the public. We see this already with gag orders being disseminated throughout the agencies under his control. The reason why is due to the most scary aspect of his NPD – paranoia.  You must understand that in his attempt to deflect blame for anything that reflects poorly on himself he actually believes what he says. He believes that he won the popular vote; he believes more people turned out for his inauguration than ever in history.  Evidence is meaningless.

Additionally, Mr. Trump’s condition, with its associated fears, makes him susceptible to conspiracies; however, the real danger is that once he has put his “credibility” behind a conspiracy he cannot back off without admitting failure.  Do you remember the tens of thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11? If you think he now believes Obama was born in the USA you’re kidding yourself.  His condition doesn’t allow it. The most damaging conspiracy he currently embraces involves an entire industry: the American media lining up against him with dishonesty.

What is going to be less noticeable due to the lack of transparency is how that paranoia will affect the individuals working for him and even the military.

The people around him will begin to understand the risk they take in being out front on an issue that goes bad. Low profile will be the new standard. Disillusionment will be rampant. As he is clueless on the initiatives and/or Bills Republican leadership gets him to sign, he will blame them for every wrinkle that takes place as a result. There will be no joint mea culpa in the Trump Administration.

When a likely external terrorist attack occurs for the first time since 2001 (and on “his watch”), expect wholesale bloodshed of government officials and agencies and, unfortunately, a manic response by law enforcement and/or the military.

I feel the Nation would be better served by the Media beginning to question the rationality of Trump’s assertions instead of just questioning, with their incredulity, his motives. A President with a NPD either needs to leave office or have the condition treated. The latter would at least let the next four years fall into a holding pattern of inactivity or until Congress can be readjusted in 2018. The alternative is to release on the Nation and the World potential chaos.

Why You Should Care

Let me cut to the chase. This posting is about Estate Taxes, known in the tax world as Transfer Taxes, or called by either dim or conspiring Conservatives as The Death Tax. It is also a posting about how you can know something about your world and still not have a conceptual understanding of it.

We all know there is a concentration of wealth in the United States. Historically there has always been a small wealthy class and such has been no different in other countries around the world. Yet the subject makes news, mostly in the liberal intellectual circles, and for good reason.

It is perhaps the single most destructive condition that can beset growth in a modern economy and undermine democracy as a viable social structure.  If wealth inequality in America was a cancer, we are now at stage 4.

Politicians pander to it from different directions. Economists and authors address it to a limited audience. People like Bernie Sanders try to elevate it to the level of a populous revolution.  For the most part all of this is ignored by the vast majority of Americans.

Statistics regarding this concentration float about somewhat. A common one, for example, claims that 40% of all private assets in the United States are owned by 1% of the population. Another is that the bottom 80% of the population own 15% of the Nation’s wealth.  Although the numbers may vary slightly, there are none that contradict the vast disparity or the general accuracy.

In an attempt to confuse the issue the subject is often misdirected (by interested parties and media alike) to differences in published rates of income, where the disparity is around one-tenth as extreme. Income minus expenses is the engine of wealth accumulation, but, as is commonly known; most wealth is accumulated by “income” that never sees the light of day, statistically speaking.

Whenever you hear wealth disparity described in terms of income either you or the source have been led astray.

My befuddlement relates to why these blatant facts are so meaningless to a majority of adults in America?  Even most of those few who see the extreme nature of the inequality are neutral as to the problems created therein. What are the problems? Immense.

They include stagnation of economic growth, disenfranchisement of the working poor, undermining of democratic rule, formation of oligarchies, increase in class dependencies, and international policies that are not representative of the nation as a whole…to name a few.

However, the affects are the subject of another post. Here I want to look at the why in the question why don’t people care, and the how in the question how can we make it better.

Most Americans, say 90% (just a guess on my part, could be bigger), live in a world of 5s, 10s, and 20s. Whether it is the person who lives with assistance, who works paycheck to paycheck, or who lives comfortably without financial fear, he or she moves through their fiscal life with numbers they can understand.

The use of money is conceived in multiplies of what one can actually hold in their hand. Children are still taught about finance with coins placed in their grasp. A $10,000 windfall is a big deal.  It doesn’t matter if generations affected by inflation view the cost of a tomato differently; it is still understandable, despite how inflation may impact behavior.

What people don’t understand is hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions, or trillions. These numbers are a conceptual black hole for everyday Americans and therefore are not calculated into how we intellectually or emotionally view the world.

Bernie Sanders consistently makes reference to the Billionaire Class without giving it much definition. I define it as individuals with over $200 million in net assets that have relative liquidity.  I do so because I feel that number is a point in which the number itself loses all meaning to the average American. It could be more or less, but no matter.  There is no rational association the average American can make with someone who controls that kind of wealth...and the wealthy know it.

You know the truth when you hear Americans of limited means honestly argue that the wealthy are “the jobs creators”, that they pay “more than their fair share of taxes”, that addressing the issue is “class warfare”, that they achieved their great wealth from “hard work” (as if they dug it from the ground), that they are burdened by “Government regulations”, that Government spending is un-American, or that the only answer to national concerns like education, health care, or even the military is the “free market”. These everyday Americans cannot assimilate the wealth of those they are unwittingly defending. They are sadly duped.

How in this muddled mess can we change things? There are many ways to begin to tilt the nation toward greater equality and, as a side effect, greater prosperity… too many to cite here. The one I want to address is by far the best, because it, over time, redirects assets based on the obscene accumulations themselves.  It is Transfer Taxes (aka Estate Tax, “Death Tax”, Gift Tax, Inheritance tax).

These Transfer Tax laws currently affect less than one-tenth of one percent (>0.001) of Americans.  You’re not even in the game until your taxable net worth is over $5.3million (twice that for couples). However the tax laws are extremely complex and over the years modifications (aka loop holes) have been built into the law allowing the tax to be dodged in part or entirely. Current revenues from Transfer Taxes amount to less than three-tenths of one percent (>0.003) of the Federal Budget.

If you are an ordinary American citizen and want to make one small step in the right direction, support those who advocate rigorous Transfer Taxes.  Leave or even increase the current starting level of taxation ($5-10 million), but tax rates should rise above that to total taxation of 50 to 75% or more.  Your individual with a billion dollars in net worth would leave his/her heirs to struggle along on say $300 million.  Are you kidding me? There is no argument here, just a lack of conceptual understanding.

This is not injustice.  The “system” in the words of our current billionaire leader “is rigged”, and has been for at least the last 50 years. It’s been rigged for a selective few (including him) and redistribution into spending for the benefit of the nation as a whole is in order. The revenue from those transfer taxes could, for example, cover the cost of healthcare for the entire nation for decades and beyond.

Think about that the next time you pay a health insurance premium or forgo health care due to cost; while Trump and his family pay for concierge doctors from the money they find in their sofas. Perhaps that's something you can understand.