I haven’t blogged much about the Christmas Day Underpants Bomber incident, nor the “security” debate that it has triggered, but suffice it to say, David Brooks and Glenn Greenwald are right. First, Brooks:
[T]he system is bound to fail sometimes. Reality is unpredictable, and no amount of computer technology is going to change that. Bureaucracies are always blind because they convert the rich flow of personalities and events into crude notations that can be filed and collated. Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity.
Resilient societies have a level-headed understanding of the risks inherent in this kind of warfare.
But, of course, this is not how the country has reacted over the past week. There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems.
Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.
Dick Cheney argues that the error was caused by some ideological choice. Arlen Specter screams for more technology — full-body examining devices. “We thought that had been remedied,” said Senator Kit Bond, as if omniscience could be accomplished with legislation. …
In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, “Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.” But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways. The original line out of the White House was that the system worked. Don’t worry, little Johnny.
When that didn’t work the official line went to the other extreme. “I consider that totally unacceptable,” Obama said. I’m really mad, Johnny. But don’t worry, I’ll make it all better.
Meanwhile, the Transportation Security Administration has to be seen doing something, so it added another layer to its stage play, “Security Theater” — more baggage regulations, more in-flight restrictions.
And, from Greenwald:
Brooks documents how “childish, contemptuous and hysterical” the national reaction has been to this latest terrorist episode, egged on — as usual — by the always-hysterical American media. The citizenry has been trained to expect that our Powerful Daddies and Mommies in government will — in that most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation — Keep Us Safe. Whenever the Government fails to do so, the reaction — just as we saw this week — is an ugly combination of petulant, adolescent rage and increasingly unhinged cries that More Be Done to ensure that nothing bad in the world ever happens. Demands that genuinely inept government officials be held accountable are necessary and wise, but demands that political leaders ensure that we can live in womb-like Absolute Safety are delusional and destructive. Yet this is what the citizenry screams out every time something threatening happens: please, take more of our privacy away; monitor more of our communications; ban more of us from flying; engage in rituals to create the illusion of Strength; imprison more people without charges; take more and more control and power so you can Keep Us Safe.
This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents’ bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. …
What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That’s because certain values — privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power — were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.
These are the calculations that are now virtually impossible to find in our political discourse. It is fear, and only fear, that predominates. No other competing values are recognized.
Indeed. Ugh.
Right.
Brooks: “In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, ‘Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.’ ”
Yes. And he might even add, “So I’m not going to tell you I’ll make sure this can Never Happen Again — since you know as well as I do that sooner or later, Everything happens again. What I will do, is take any pertinent and prudent measures that can make it Later rather than Sooner — practical and lawful changes, that is, which can further reduce the frequency of such security breaches.”
Greenwald: “A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:”
Indeed. / Still — mindful that Everything eventually happens Again (and that certain Perceptions are prettymuch Constant at All times 🙂 — I have to smile at the present-day resonances of this subsequent Adams passage, not quoted by Greenwald — emphasis added —
Hee hee. Oh, been in so Wretched a Condition before, have we? My my. ;>
“Yes. And he might even add, “So I’m not going to tell you I’ll make sure this can Never Happen Again — since you know as well as I do that sooner or later, Everything happens again. What I will do, is take any pertinent and prudent measures that can make it Later rather than Sooner — practical and lawful changes, that is, which can further reduce the frequency of such security breaches.”
At which point he would be pilloried for being a limp-wristed waffler who was Soft on Terror. I do so love my media cohorts, predictable as they are.
Of course, trooperbari. / But remember that the Premise of David Brooks’s thought-experiment, on which I was merely Elaborating ;}, was that (emphasis mine) “In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say…” [etc.]
Let’s accept the premise that we are currently an immature nation, unable or unwilling to accept harsh truths about the dangers and threats of life.
Are current government policies and administration initiatives more likely to extend our nation’s immaturity or curtail it?
Should we be telling the American people that the government will protect and provide for you in all cases, or rather that individuals have a responsibility to take care of themselves?
I submit that the infantilization of the American people is a direct result of progressive/liberal/left wing efforts to create a government-as-parent society.
(Plus note I condemn both Presidents Bush for buying into this ideology in an insane attempt to curry favor with the left/popular culture also.)
We need a serious politician able and willing to say that life is not necessarily fair, and it is not the government’s job to provide anything for you.
My solution?
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-three-wishes.html#links
Gahrie, I substantially agree (!! 🙂 with much [albeit not all] of your comment #4 above.
However, as to Wish #3 of your Solution as linked in your #5 above, I hereinbelow paste my
flamethrow atremarks upon :> your estimable Blogspot post re same :“3) Anyone receiving any governmental money except payments for goods received would no longer be eligible to vote in elections for the level of government they received the payments from. This includes employees (except active duty members of the armed services)…” [Emphases added]
Gahrie, setting aside the absurdity (not to mention, the Preposterosity 🙂 of the premise: why the 2nd exception?
I.e., if payment for Services Rendered (as distinguished from Goods Received) is to be Disfranchising as described, re elections for both houses of Congress and the Presidency, for civilian employee of the federal Legislative and Executive branches respectively — and even for military Reserve workers in the latter — then why should compensation for such Services Rendered by the uniformed Active-duty employees of the executive-branch DOD not have a similarly disfranchising effect?
Especially considering that per your Wish as stated, salaried agents of the CIA, FBI, DEA, TSA, NCIS [my favorite btw :], Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals office, Secret Service & So forth, would lose their right to vote for President.
And for that matter, since you would also ban State workers from voting for State offices, how come you don’t (just for consistency’s sake 🙂 exempt all the heroic active-duty uniformed State Police [Highway Patrol, Texas Rangers, etc] from the voting prohibition? They put their Lives on the Line for us every day too, y’know. Whaddaya, some kinda Cop-hater or sumpin’? ;>
Oh, and one little Technical point too: since Federal and State elective offices — and some County & Municipal ones too (though the humble laborers-in-the-vineyards of Those lowly governmental levels are mysteriously omitted from your No-Vote List) — are usually listed together on the same election ballots, would you care to come to Connecticut and help my former state elections-administration colleagues set up the Precincts in such a way as to effectively Implement your hideously unAmerican “You-can-Vote-for-This-but-not-for-That-depending-on-what-your-Job-is” scheme?
IOW: come on, Gahrie. In your miltonfriedmaniac wishlist fantasies you can Slash the role of Government (except for the best-and-the-bravest Military-government part of it, of course 🙂 as much as your adamsmithian little heart desires. But once your massive Cutbacks are all done, whatever little may remain of the Public Sector will still be run by: a bunch of People. The Government is not Machinery, Gahrie. There IS no “machinery of government”. No robots. Just a collection — a subset — of Americans. And Americans (a) get paid for services rendered, and (b) get to Vote.
Wait, you think government employees should be disenfranchised?!? What the heck? You claim you want to return to local control and a federal republic (a term which you don’t really seem to understand anyway) how is disenfranchising people a way to improve local control? Why would you punish the very people who are WILLING to help government function?!? The whole point of representative government is that EVERYONE gets to have a vote into who represents them (with exceptions for age, criminals, and the mentally infirm). Or how about the fact that military spending, which you seem to believe is a true constitutional duty (as opposed to other things, which for some reason you don’t) is a massive part of the federal budget AND the recent spending due to the Iraq war is a major reason we have such a huge deficit. You claim we are wasting money and wouldn’t have to pay so much (if anything?!?) in taxes, yet the reason we have money problems now is due in large part to areas YOU would allow to continue!
But ok, lets take your ideas and put them into practice.
First, we will get rid of the Department of Transportation, there is nothing in the constitution about building and maintaing the highway system or air traffic control. In fact we are going to shut everything down right now. All federal road construction projects stop. Bridges stop. Road repairs stop. No air traffic controllers will show up for work tomorrow. Not only are all those workers now out of jobs, meaning they can’t afford their house payments, can’t buy food, can’t provide for their families, air traffic over the country grinds to a halt.
Next up, the Department of Energy. Every federally built, owner, and/or operated or financially supported power station, relay, etc. goes dark. Massive power outages across the nation. Oh sure, we could let private industry step in, they will surely do a better job. Nope, wait, we saw that in California about a decade ago. De-regulation led to higher priced energy and rolling blackouts. In order to fix it President Bush had to FORCE the Bonneville Power Administration, a government run energy provider in the Pacific Northwest, to sell energy to California at fixed rates.
I could go on, really I could, but the idea that the government is sitting there throwing away money uselessly and doing no good is just bullshit. These things are done, in large part, because they are good for the country. Its GOOD to have a highway system, its GOOD to have air traffic control, its GOOD to have hydro electric power and a power grid to transmit it around. And the government does it, because private industry can’t. I’m sorry, but its true, it is incapable of handling projects of that size effectively. You can dream about a perfect privatized America, but examples like the housing crisis, and the California power de-regulation demonstrate precisely why we need government to get things done. Reasonable people can disagree on how much we should put into this or that area, but when you start calling for the elimination of all but a handful of government programs and the elimination or dramatic reduction of income tax, you are demonstrating a severe and distinct inability to comprehend how the real world works and what history has shown does and, more importantly, does not work.
As to the topic at hand, the paranoia and fear politics of the GOP, coupled with inane needs to fight a war against a tactic and not an actual enemy (note: terrorism is merely a tool, its not an actual “thing” you can beat), that lead to things like shoe checks and no liquid rules that are intrusive and practically useless. The problem is not wishy washy liberals, its power hungry, paranoia feeding conservatives.
Incidentaly the whole point of using terrorist tactics is to terrorize people, to get them to fear you and act accordingly. Giving up rights and reasonable behaviors on vague, unsubstantiated demands of “security” and “safety” are victories for the terrorists. Too bad Bush and Co. didn’t get that.
Well..I did end the post saying I was a dreamer Joe….
First of all..I am a government worker. I am a teacher, worse, a teacher in California. I have seen first hand the enormous damage that can be done to a state’s finances by state workers.
I used to say that I was against government employees being allowed to form unions. However, I was laid off last year due to budget cuts, and saw first hand why the unions ARE needed. (The supreme irony is, while I was a member of the union, indeed a union official, I was against the union’s existence. Now that I am no longer a member – because of the lay off – I have changed my mind)
Upon further reflection, my problem is not with the existence of the union, but with the influence the union and teachers (and by extension all government workers and their unions) have had on politics within the state.
Since it is clearly unconstitutional to limit political speech, I cannot ban their influence on politics. However, it is clearly possible to limit the franchise. Many limitations have been placed on it in the past, and indeed there are currently limitations placed on it, depending on an individual’s status. (whether or not you have been convicted of a felony, length of residence etc)
This being said, after reading your comment, and upon further reflection I will sadly remove my second exception and extend the prohibition to members of the armed services while they were on active duty.
(and by the way, the prohibition would be extended to county and city workers also…I just thought that was understood)
In California they already print numerous ballots for each election. Depending on your primary language, party affiliation, and political precinct, the ballot you receive can be very different from others voting in the same election.
you can Slash the role of Government (except for the best-and-the-bravest Military-government part of it, of course
Let me point out that national defense is one of the few legitemate functions of the national government. However I do not seek just to eliminate government functions (although I would eliminate some) but rather move them back to a more immediate presence in people’s lives by moving them to the lowest level of government possible. I believe in decentralizing and federalizing the government.
While I have a beef with governmental workers and their influence, I have a much BIGGER beef with those who receive government funds and are not government workers. We are fast achieving a position (if we have not already done so) in which half the population pays no taxes, but has the ability to vote themselves governmental payouts. Indeed we are going to soon be in a position in which a minority of Americans pay all taxes so that a majority of Americans can receive payments. Here be monsters.
I freely cop to being a fan of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. I believe it is irrefutable that their ideas (among others such as Locke, Hobbes, and our Founding Fathers) have produced the most wealth and the highest standard of living, spread among the largest number of people, in human existence.
David K:
1) I believe I understand federalism much better than you.
2) You yourself state that the franchise can indeed by limited, while at the same time attempting to say that the franchise cannot be limited.
3) To take one of you confused examples:
When I eliminate the Dept. of Transportation I would transfer what true federal responsibilities they have, such as the FAA, to the Dept. of the Interior where they belong. The rest would be sent to the level of government they more clearly belong to, such as the states. Let the states maintain the highways and regulate energy. Why should a company in another state be forced to sell energy to California? It is the responsibility of the people and government of California to provide energy to the state of California. I assure you, the rest of the western states (rightfully) bitterly resent being forced to deal with California’s problems. And remember I live in California.
4) To restate and stress a vital point: My post is not so much about eliminating government (although that is rarely a bad thing), but moving government closer to the people. It is this huge federal nanny state that is infantilizing the American people, in part by isolating them from the functions of government.
5) This country once thrived without the existence of the income tax. Progressives forced it through in part by insisting that it would be temporary, and only effect a small minority of people. History has proven both of these statements to be mistaken at best.
David K:
As to your attacks on the GOP and President Bush, I would merely note that President Obama has extended every national security provision of President Bush.
The only change that has been made is to return to dealing with terrorists as criminals rather than enemy combatants. (and I feel that this is a bad idea.)
Who is telling the American people that we are in a crisis over health care, and that we do not have the time for transparency and open debate, WE HAVE TO ACT NOW!!!!!!!!!
Who is telling the American people that we are in a crisis over global warming and WE HAVE TO ACT NOW!!!!!!!
Who is promoting and pandering to fear now?
Gahrie, I certainly agree that the entitlement era in the developed west may create more problems than it solves. I disagree that the answer is to disenfranchise recipients; in a sense, they’ve been disenfranchised already. If you’re an old dude who is surviving on your meager Social Security check, you are pretty much a one-issue voter, yes? If the polity takes away your vote, it won’t be long in this crazy deficit-mad era before they take away your Social Security check too. You can’t blame the average dowager for taking the nation’s largesse when offered in the form of Social Security, why should she bear the brunt of our poor decisions now?
It also seems to me that the remaining rump of the GOP is drinking some seriously tainted kool-aid to believe that this stuff happens as a result of otherwise noble men like Dubya being confused by the evil forces of liberalism. Liberalism has nothing to do with it in 2010. Disappointing Republicans are driven by power and have been for at least a half century.
I mean, for crap’s sake, look at the painfully unconservative Republican Presidents we have had in the past half century: Dubya, allegedly a puppet to a scurrilous man who famously said “deficits don’t matter”; Reagan (or is it Raygun?) who also believed that deficits didn’t matter, driving the public coffers into the toilet, Reagan’s thing was spending like mad to militarily defeat an enemy who was, come to think of it, doing a pretty good job of killing themselves. Then the piece de resistance: Tricky Dick Nixon. Watergate shmatergate. That asshole did his best Brezhnev impression by imposing wage and price controls prior to the 1972 elections, in order to put off an inevitable recession (and as it turns out, make it much worse).
Gahrie, it is beyond partisan ridicule to suggest that these men behaved in their irresponsibly spendy/economy battering ways because they were blinded by liberals. They were blinded by power.
Amazingly, after 50 years of spendy/freedom-hating Republican madness, the two most prominent candidates to face the shaky Obama in 2012 are a guy whose claim to fame in Massachusetts was state-level socialized medicine, and a lady who led the free world in earmarks and signed in a huge tax increase on oil production (that was passed back to the people in a delightful, Mao-esque, distribution payment).
Jesus, man, until the Republicans come to terms with the sick power-mad excesses within their own party, they are doomed to remain on the fringes of American political life, as they ultimately represent no one expect those who look at ghosts and mirages.
Here’s an interesting read Instapundit featured today:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-59.pdf
Sure an’ this place hasn’t changed a bit !
And a Healthy, Happy, and Prosperous New Year to one and all !
There are problems with any scheme which allocates the franchise … Some forms of Democracy are worse than others …
In any of the forms of democracy, there needs to be some limit on “The Tyranny of the Majority” – without that, when 20 Wolves and 19 Lambs vote on what to have for their next meal, the minority shrinks …
When those who pay no tax are a majority *and* are able to vote upon how much tax is to be paid by whom, they are unlikely to vote to have themselves pay more tax …
Jazz – ” it is beyond partisan ridicule to suggest that these men “ are responsible for the Budgets during their terms in office since the Congress has the final responsibility for the US Budget … a President can propose a budget, but it is Congress who decides what the final Budget contains … I realise that it is convenient for partisan purposes to blame the Presidents for the Legislations which shaped the Budgets, but, in the US, the Legislature has that responsibility …
And we have seen which of the two major parties actually passes the Nanny-state legislations most of the time …
Brendan – on the initial topic of the “Christmas Day Underpants Bomber incident”, but, as I understand it, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab contacted Al Qaeda folk to see how he could help; and the Al Qaeda folk asked Mutallab what he wanted to do, and Mutallab answered “Depends !” – and the rest is history …
Ahhhh, I’ve missed this place !
“Well..I did end the post saying I was a dreamer Joe….”
Yeah, you did, gahrie. And you even accurately added, “but I’m not the only one”. But somehow you left out the part about,
An inadvertent omission, no doubt. ;> Anyway, we’ll hope someday to join you, and the world will be as one. 🙂
“…after reading your comment, upon further reflection I will sadly remove my second exception and extend the prohibition to members of the armed services while they were on active duty.”
Good man. Now at least you’re being Consistent. (You & I both being big fans of Emerson’s Imp. 🙂
“I am a government worker…I have seen first hand the enormous damage that can be done to a state’s finances by state workers.”
SEEN it? Why, you’ve personally CONTRIBUTED to it, you definitionally-unproductive tax-consuming lazyass slug! / WAW haw haw NOOO nono…
“…I was laid off last year due to budget cuts, and saw first hand why the unions ARE needed.”
Yeah, that’ll Do that. Scales fall from Eyes. (Btw in the Early days of my own state-worker Union activism, I was a conservative Republican. [As were the two union officers who Recruited me!] But I was never Anti-Union as such; my Dad, a lifelong “laborskate” as he used to put it, had inculcated in me a belief in the legitmacy & value of collective bargaining.)
“…it is clearly possible to limit the franchise. Many limitations have been placed on it in the past, and indeed there are currently limitations placed on it, depending on an individual’s status. (whether or not you have been convicted of a felony, length of residence etc)”
An individual’s undischarged-felony status, residency status, under-age status – Yes. Note that such voting-ineligibility factors are disfranchising for ALL elective offices, not just Certain ones. / But employment status: No. Clear violation of Equal Protection, with no compelling state interest to withstand the Strict Scrutiny required for so massive & capricious a contraction of the Franchise. Not even the current Supreme Court would go for it. (Hell, I bet Scalia, Himself, would write the 9-0 opinion striking it down. 😉
“…Depending on your primary language, party affiliation, and political precinct, the ballot you receive can be very different from others voting in the same election.”
OK, true & fair enough. / Of course we’d have to Code each precinct’s voting list for the pertinent governmental Employment Categories, such that Federal, State, County, and Municipal workers will each receive a Different edition of a Partial ballot. / But sure, we can do that. Just throw more Money at us. ;> We’ll contract the No Vote list out to the guys who do the No Fly list. That oughta take care of it. 🙂
“… I have a much BIGGER beef with those who receive government funds and are not government workers.”
Yeah, I hate those damn Banks and Corporations and Wall Street Weasels too. ;}
“I freely cop to being a fan of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.”
Brilliant men, undoubtedly. And Locke too, as you said. / I’m not too sure about Hobbes. I hear he was rather nasty, brutish and short. 🙂
Alasdair my trusty fiere! This place has missed you too. Glad ye paused yer paidl’n’ in the burn frae morning sun til dine, for to drop in on us. 🙂
“…and Mutallab answered ‘Depends !’ – and the rest is history …”
OY! (groan 🙂 On second thought, why don’t you go back and run about the braes and pou the gowans fine a while longer. / nononono ;}
OK now listen, forget all this Politics crap and tell me something Important. Namely: what would you recommend I do about the 15-ounce can of “Traditional Skinless Haggis Made with the Finest Ingredients” [sic :] which my darling Wife presented to me for Christmas? No really, she did! Having ordered it from an Irish Gifts catalogue, presumably published by the League of Hibernian Ignoramuses, or possibly by Kerrymen, but I Repeat myself. ;}
According to the Haggis can’s Serving Suggestions, “For ultimate enjoyment this dish should be washed down with a glass of Scotch whiskey.” So being an Dutiful little fellow, always willing to make a Sacrifice in the cause of haute cuisine, I went out and got a nice Single Malt. / Trouble is, now whenever my eyes chance to fall upon that can, with its gaily-beTartaned label & its detailed listing of the Finest Ingredients within, I feel the need of a wee drappie or three for to settle my Nerves…I may have to to finish the Scotch just to fabricate enough courage to open the Haggis… 🙂
So, how ’bout a good Recipe? ;]
For the record: no, the Canned Haggis Christmas Present is not a Warning flag re my Marriage. ;> The Wife is just sometimes Mischievous, is all. Why, she’s even told me how she deeply regrets being unable to Share the meal with me because it contains Pork. (I told her so you can go to the Rabbi for Confession already, and then she suggested where I can Go too, so I dropped it. 🙂 O wad some Power the giftie gie us. ;]
Elder Loy !
(Hey, if the joke was good enough for Senator Dole, it’s good enough for thee and me !)
Now, to the Chieftain o’ the Pudding Race …
To fit with your own varicoloured self … I would suggest a dish known as “Tricolour” …
Decant the haggis into a clear casserole dish, wherein it should fill about 1/4 of the height of said dish …
Place an equivalently-deep layer of mashed potatoes on top of the haggis …
Place an equivalently-deep layer of well-mashed turnip (the orange kind) on the top …
Bake … (mostly to ensure an even heat) …
Et voila ! A feast for both eye and palate …
(bigger grin) And you could have your son post the visuals of the result on his blog, here …
So what is your taste in Single Malt ? I’m at present about 8 miles from the Oban Distillery, on the west coast of Scotland – enjoying the temperate weather here while watching the frigid sassenachs south and east of here …
Joe:
Yeah, I hate those damn Banks and Corporations and Wall Street Weasels too. ;}
I have always opposed corporate welfare and farm subsidies. If you refer back to my original post I specifically included them in my list of those who should be denied the vote.
Alasdair, I echo the sentiments that its great to see you back, though I know next to nothing about Irish cuisine, so I will venture into the politics a bit.
I believe you and I have had the ol’ “Who’s responsible for bloated budgets?” conversation before, neither of us convinced the other then, so we surely won’t now. I’m personally less interested in parsing out how much the executive and the legislature are responsible for the deficit status of the country as much as the higher-level question: what does it mean to be a conservative politician in an era of entitlements?
In the first eleven comments, and on his blog, Gahrie made several pretty good recommendations about local authority taking over for the Feds. I philosophically agree with a lot of what he says. I practically think that most of it is a pipe dream. This is mainly because entitlements, while initially satisfying “bleeding heart”/lefty aspirations, have since shifted to satisfy the ‘centralization of power’ aspirations of national politicians.
Which candidate, outside of maybe Ron Paul, would run for President on a platform of the rational decentralizations of power that Gahrie recommends?
Even if such a candidate existed, what would be his or her constituency, where would he or she get his money (aside from Gahrie and others like him)?
So what does it mean to be a Republican candidate in the 21st century?
Alasdair, I am deeply envious re your present venue. / Send my regards to the frigid sassenachs. ;}
Thanks for the Tricolour recipe! We shall Do it, begob.
As for the single malt uisge baugh, truth is I rarely indulge in the nectar nowadays, it being quite dear and meself just an old civil-service pensioner on a Fixed Income. ;> But though I admittedly, shall we say, Hyperbolized above re imbibing it prematurely, I really Did go buy a modest bottle of The Dalmore specifically for Haggis Accompaniment purposes (label states “Dalmore Alness Ross Shire IV17 Out Scotland”, whatever Out Scotland might mean, perhaps something about the Gay pride parade in the hieland Glens, I dinna ken :).
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Jazz: good questions. I got no answers.
gahrie: Yes I know you’re against gummint subsidy of Fatcats and good On ye. I just couldn’t resist a play on your phraseology (which I ruthlessly ripped from its Context to serve my snarky Purpose, of course :).
Perhaps this is going off on a tangent a bit, but as this thread has included recipes and discussions of scotch, I think I might be forgiven.
I’m a little concerned about any plan to remove anyone’s vote for any reason. More broadly than a direct concern about your plan Gahrie, I think the best solution is universal suffrage in this country. Even for felons and traitors, I question the wisdom of revoking anyone’s right to vote. The absolute right to vote regardless of any other circumstance should be seen as the best bulwark against tyranny that we have. Especially in the case of felons, I think that it’s prudent to recognize that at the point at which felons became a large enough percentage of the population that we should fear their influence in politics it is probably because they need the vote the most- something would be seriously wrong with our country at that point.
To your specific recommendation it appears to me that you’ve identified a specific political issue that you see to be a problem and come up with an idea to solve it that involves disenfranchising some of the people you see as supporting it.
I know this isn’t your intent, but I think you should consider that that is precisely what you are proposing. I imagine in your mind you are attempting to eliminate conflict of interest, and while that’s a legitimate concern, everyone has a conflict of interest. Those who wish to not be taxed and regulated have just as much a conflict of interest as those receiving something, but of course we wouldn’t disenfranchise them.
I’m really going to get killed for this….
I believe that universal sufferage is a major part of the problem, not a solution. Like our Founding Fathers, I fear and oppose direct democracy. I desire and support a republican form of government. (please note the lack of capital letters)
I do not support limiting the franchise by gender or race, but I do think their should be some limitations.
I do not think we should go as far as Heinlein in this regard, and I recognize that a test or tax can be used for evil purposes.
But we have to devise a way to limit the franchise.
We have reached a state where a majority of the voters will pay no taxes. we are quickly reaching a point where the majority of the voters will pay no taxes, and instead receive government payouts.
We are at the point where families have existed on government payments for four generations.
How does our nation continue to exist when we continue to increase entitlement spending, continue to increase taxes on the few who pay and continue to transform citizens into dependents of our government?
Respected Elder Loy
Perchance you might be unfamiliar with the concept of a post-code ?
Dalmore,
Alness,
Ross Shire,
IV17 Out, (except that it’s IV17 0UT not IV17 OUT
Scotland
As for Pride Parades, consider how the classic Sacots attire that is The Kilt gives most excellent access for many purposes … you are perhaps more than passing familiar with the expression “Scotland – where Men are Men – and Sheep are Nervous !” ?
(innocent grin)
To move from the Excise to the Franchise (each taxing in its own way), consider rather that we should identify those who are eligible to vote, as contrasted with listing those who should be banned …
Once those who are eligible are listed, then list how someone eligible can give up that eligibility, like by becoming a duly-convicted felon …
And then ENFORCE both aspects !
And if we had a President worthy of the Office, he would start by unambiguously providing his own proof of eligibility, as something of which he would declare himself to be proud …
If the same funds and effort were put into ensuring that those who vote were truly eligible to vote, as we put into ensuring that those who use a Credit Card are eligible to own and use said Credit Card, that would do significantly more towards securing our democracy for the future than all the efforts by ACORN and Rush Limbaugh …
Gahrie@23: I pretty much agree with you. I dread that the emergence of one-issue voters, such as the dowager I referenced in post 13, are a terrible problem for the future of democracy. To my way of thinking, democracy is the best of the bad political options (to paraphrase Churchill), because little people like you and I can act as checks on the crazy aspirations of demented politicians with our vote.
But when an increasing part of the polity is pretty much just voting for their money, (to be clear – understandably so – why in the world would that dowager vote on any other criteria than who will sustain her meager SS check?) this is arguably pretty bad for sustaining the state. It basically guarantees that the world of special interests, that McCain rails against, will dominate the nation and eventually destroy it.
I further fear that a political model such as China’s will dominate the 21st century. Sort of “Mussolini-lite” – enough order to make the trains run on time, to ensure that commerce leads to economic development, but not a lot of freedom, with twitter and the internet keeping the totalitarians in – some – check. Its a vision of a world better than Iran circa 2010, and way better than say the Ottoman Empire circa 1410. But it isn’t one that I find all that appealing compared with everything I love about the US.
And one other thing: the thing that would topple the American democratic, one-man, one-vote system is the single-issue special-interest voters whose interests threaten the viability of our democracy. When the controlled capitalist, Chinese model takes over, will anyone tweet for the dowager when her meager SS check is cut in half because the budget is threatened? The guess here is no.
Many of the special interests whose votes would be taken away in your model don’t have any idea how good they have it in a nation where there votes are their voices – when their votes disappear, it won’t be long before they do too.
consider rather that we should identify those who are eligible to vote, as contrasted with listing those who should be banned …
We do list those who are eligible to vote. You go in on election day and there is a list with your name on it. If your name isn’t on the list, you only vote provisionally. Granted this could vary by state, but that’s how it is in PA and MD where I have voted.
And if we had a President worthy of the Office, he would start by unambiguously providing his own proof of eligibility, as something of which he would declare himself to be proud …
Why? We didn’t ask previous presidents to provide proof, and there is no evidence to suggest he isn’t. Why would he provide evidence of something not in question?
If the same funds and effort were put into ensuring that those who vote were truly eligible to vote, as we put into ensuring that those who use a Credit Card are eligible to own and use said Credit Card, that would do significantly more towards securing our democracy for the future than all the efforts by ACORN and Rush Limbaugh …
I think many would argue there is very little effort put into screening credit card applicants either, and that’s one of the problems we have with too much credit being given out. I tend to thing that perspective is a bit reactionary, but it’s telling…
Voter fraud is not actually a big problem in the United States, I don’t really see it as a threat to our democracy.
But we have to devise a way to limit the franchise.
This is where we disagree. Any attempt to limit the franchise will be an attempt to limit it in a way that is favorable to those doing the limiting. There is nothing good about that situation.
Consider the following (in support of Gahrie’s perspective):
Suppose that, 1 1/2 years from now, as the lengthy 2012 election campaign heats up, Barack Obama is generally doing very very well. Suppose further that his obvious opponent is Sarah Palin, who alienates all uncommitted voters even worse than she has to this point. Its often said that an election is 40% committed Republicans, 40% committed Democrats, with the swing 20% deciding the thing. Suppose in this example that every single persuadable voter prefers Obama, such that the electorate is 60-40 for Obama.
Now even though Obama is doing well, let’s further assume that the economy is still in the shitter, in spite of a couple more stimuli. With the national debt at an unsustainable ~$15 T, and with Obama occupying a dominant position vs. Palin, and with his economists saying “Now is the time to attack entitlements, or else”, Obama takes to the airwaves to announce that, effective immediately, all social security payments will be cut by 15%.
Let’s assume further that the polity is split as follows: 20% either will be seriously immediately harmed by the social security cut, or are close enough to retirement that their reliance on social security can’t be fixed through other means. The other 80% don’t care or are far enough away from retirement that they can invest to make up the difference.
So now you’ve got an electorate that is in one chunk 48%-32% for Obama (the 60-40 advantage in the 80% not affected by the social security cut)…and what will happen to the 20% affected by the social security cut? If Palin or her handlers have any brains, she’ll take to the air and say how mean Obama is, that she would immediately reverse any such harsh cuts to Social Security. How will those 20% of folks affected by the social security cut now vote?
Upshot for this hypothetical election, in which Obama had the most commanding lead possible – a virtually “unanimous” endorsement – is a likely win for Palin, by a rather large-ish 52-48 margin.
So when you read a guy like Andrew Sullivan, arguing that there needs to be entitlement reform, sure dude, true, but in the current political structure, there’s no way it would happen, since any aggressive move can cost a Presidential candidate an election s/he might otherwise have won unanimously.
Finally, while it seems philosophically offensive to give a social security recipient something like the proverbial 3/5 vote, and as I’ve said above, it seems decidedly unfair – but the $20 T debt with no end in sight seems pretty shitty too. Gahrie is probably right that the nation is not sustainable without some sort of distasteful change to voting rights in America.
Gahrie is probably right that the nation is not sustainable without some sort of distasteful change to voting rights in America.
This isn’t in-line with the reality on the ground as far as how bad the social security problem actually is, but that’s a whole other conversation.
Pretending for a moment that that was true, oh well.
Guess it was a nice experiment, buh bye.
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to abandon democracy for anything, certainly not some falsely perceived threat about entitlement payments.
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to abandon democracy for anything,
Why? When and why did this obsession with democracy take hold?
Our nation was founded as a federal republic, with extremely limited franchise. It seems to me that as our nation has become more and more democratic and the national government has seized control things have gotten worse and worse.
Why did we need to amend the constitution to allow for the direct election of senators? What is the point of having senators anymore? Senators used to represent the interests of the states, now they are just more powerful representatives.
Our founding Fathers recoginized the dangers of democracy. At least half of their arguments endorsing our current constitution were designed to show how it would not lead to a democracy. Democracy is by definition the rule of the mob and it is leading us to ruin.
But pthread, from what I read no one really believes our long-term structural deficit nightmare is solvable without serious entitlement reform. You might be able to cut into the problem using relatively invisible means, such as ‘bending the Medicare cost curve’ by making people wait for life-saving surgeries until more of them die, or privatizing some social security with rules that virtually guarantee that most people wouldn’t get as much. I’m not an expert, but from my understanding these are palliatives, not cures.
I’m not condemning the mob that Gahrie describes as leading us to ruin; I’m identifying with them. If I were the aformenetioned dowager in this thread, smart enough to recognize that Sarah Palin is simply not smart enough, but Barack Obama announced my SS check was being cut 15%, well, Sarah Palin would start to look like Joan of Arc to me. That would be true for just about anyone, and we all pretty much know this.
When the only reasonable way to deal with a problem that threatens to destroy your nation is to “trick” those who are causing the problem, that doesn’t say much for the attractiveness of full universal suffrage in the 21st century.
Then again, we could also just trick ourselves that entitlement bloat is not a problem; that’s another way to “deal” with the problem…
Brief recipe side-jack – Elder Loy – consult the list of ingredients in the Haggis – if it is genuine Haggis, all the meat part are actually Sheep Parts – there should not be any Pork in a genuine Haggis – so your Lady Wife is fully permitted to partake of the epicurean delight which *she* gave you !
Why? When and why did this obsession with democracy take hold?
Our nation was founded as a federal republic, with extremely limited franchise. It seems to me that as our nation has become more and more democratic and the national government has seized control things have gotten worse and worse.
Yes. Our nation was also founded while tolerating slavery and genocide against the native population. We lived (and live) in an imperfect union. So the idea that how things were should inform how they have to be today is a flawed one. Indeed this is precisely what Thomas Paine argued against when arguing against heredity in Common Sense. Because someone before us either through force or voluntarily gave up freedoms does not mean that we have given them away today.
As to things getting worse, if you would volunteer to live back in the 19th century, go for it. If by worse you mean quality of life rapidly improving in this country, then yes, it’s worse. Things are much better now, and in most cases that’s due to government involvement. The space program, public universities, NIH, all these things bring us countless benefits and enrich our lives, but come from the government. That’s not to mention that the government was seizing control of things since the beginning. The debate over the size and scope of the government has been going on since the first administration.
Why did we need to amend the constitution to allow for the direct election of senators? What is the point of having senators anymore? Senators used to represent the interests of the states, now they are just more powerful representatives.
Senators tend to have a less reactionary position than the house. It represents a different perspective of representative democracy.
Our founding Fathers recoginized the dangers of democracy. At least half of their arguments endorsing our current constitution were designed to show how it would not lead to a democracy. Democracy is by definition the rule of the mob and it is leading us to ruin.
No, they recognized the dangers of direct democracy. A republic is indeed a democracy, and it’s a shoddy one if it does not represent the will of all of its citizens.
Jazz: Well, I don’t necessarily think it’s as dire as some make it out to be. First, healthcare entitlements are the most taxing (no pun intended) part of this problem, but as we’ve seen from the healthcare debate that is more of a systemic healthcare problem than anything else. As things stand now, private insurance is going to eventually implode on itself if we do nothing, forgetting about government insurance.
As regards social security, it seems to me that raising the cap and raising the retirement age will resolve the problem. It seems to me that especially as we get closer to impending doom with the problem, people will be more willing to negotiate.
Now, just because I don’t see this as the big problem you do doesn’t mean we should duck the overarching question- what if something that the majority of Americans were unwilling to yield on was going to drive us over a cliff as a country?
Like above, I think this is an unlikely scenario. The preferences of the electorate tends to change when faced with a crisis. I think they’d be pushing to get someone to do something if there was impending doom. That may not be the most efficient method for certain problems to get fixed, but inefficiency in changing things is one of the characteristics of our government. It’s a big friggin ship, and it’s difficult to turn, thankfully. It keeps us from going overboard with things.
But let’s just say people refused to budge. We crashed into the iceberg of mass stupidity. Again, I say, oh well.
Gahrie is exactly right, we do have checks in place to protect against the tyranny of the majority… mob rule. But nor do we have anything in place indicating that a minority of the people can rule by decree. That completely breaks with any tradition we have in this country.
The idea that either of you would even flirt with the idea of removing the right to vote from certain people so as to solve a political problem that you identify (again, this isn’t as if anything you are arguing here is certain or foolproof, it’s a problem you identify and further a cause of the continuation of the problem) is mind boggling to me.
But let’s just say people refused to budge. We crashed into the iceberg of mass stupidity. Again, I say, oh well.
That’s horrid. You know, pthread, that I wouldn’t know you from a stranger on the street, and I have no more knowledge of you than the context from these conversations, but such a statement paints a picture of a person who thinks such an outcome is impossible for the US, since the casual dismissal of the result suggests that one hasn’t really seriously considered it.
OTOH, perhaps you, for one, would welcome our new evil overlords, and congratulate them when all our bases are belong to them. I personally think I’m going to be screwed, maybe my family too, since I’m borderline too opinionated and obnoxious for the USA, and I surely wouldn’t make it in a colony.
But then, your prescription for the bedeviling social security problem is…you know…raise the cap and the retirement age, then do that thing that handymen do when they brush the dust off their hands, and move on.
How much you wanna raise the cap? Its what, $100 K and change now? Let’s make it $200 K. Has to be something material to support the entitlement era. $200 K isn’t a big deal – yes?
If the cap goes from $100 to $200 K, at the current 6.2%, that means that any family making $200 K+ stands to lose $6,200/year, or a little over $500 month. Ours isn’t one of those families. We live in the humble neighborhood, I don’t roll with those folks. But I doubt that many of them can just casually kiss $500/month goodbye in the interest of raising the cap. They will all vote against whoever proposed the idea, which brings me right back to post 29.
How about raising that retirement age? Another great idea. Those hordes of 50-somethings who got laid off this year and will struggle to find a suitable replacement job will love that too. See post 29 – more electoral suicide if not handled with great delicacy.
But suppose I grant you the benefit of the doubt on the successful execution of these immensely difficult changes that you appear to believe are doable with a dash of casual panache. How does jacking up the revenues, or reducing the expenditures, of social security ‘solve’ the problem of the entitlement state? How does that change the fact that every national politician not named Ron Paul is going to be motivated to grow the damn thing again, as that’s electoral silver and gold?
All due respect, buddy, but for high-falutin rhetoric, fuzzy prescriptions and implied ad-hominems to the fitness of your opponents, your post above could be a nice blueprint for a left-wing alternative to Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/right wing radio.
OTOH, perhaps you, for one, would welcome our new evil overlords, and congratulate them when all our bases are belong to them.
A collapse of the financial stability of our government (what we’re really talking about here) would not necessarily imply “new evil overloads.” In fact, the form of our government wouldn’t necessarily have to change at all. In one sense, you are correct, I haven’t given enough thought to attempt to fathom what would happen, but that’s largely because it’s probably impossible to say. I think it’s unlikely, however, that the Chinese will just buy us up and we’ll simply become a Chinese vassal state or something along the same lines. The form of our government could (and I see no reason to think it wouldn’t) remain.
What does represent “new evil overlords” is removing people’s right to vote. We then make a new ruling class which certainly will have no interest in representing the views of those now disenfranchised voters.
According to your later elaboration of the obstacles facing my prescription, we would be disenfranchising at the very least rich people and people nearing retirement (to implement my ideas) or I suppose we could disenfranchise all old people and the poor (if we want to implement gahries ideas). The arbitrariness of it all is astounding.
But suppose I grant you the benefit of the doubt on the successful execution of these immensely difficult changes that you appear to believe are doable with a dash of casual panache.
Just because the solution is simple does not mean the implementation of said solution is easy. But as I’ve said, when crisis looms, people preferences change. You still haven’t responded to my valid point that if given a choice between a raised retirement age and nothing at all, people will pick the raised retirement age. That doesn’t change things for the rich, but they represent a much smaller demographic then everyone else.
How does jacking up the revenues, or reducing the expenditures, of social security ’solve’ the problem of the entitlement state?
I think you overstate the problem. The “problem” is a demographic one, and is caused by a relative anomaly in what we expect normal population growth patterns to be. If we can pass the anomaly, we will be okay. Look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birthratechart_stretch.PNG
All due respect, buddy, but for high-falutin rhetoric, fuzzy prescriptions and implied ad-hominems to the fitness of your opponents, your post above could be a nice blueprint for a left-wing alternative to Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/right wing radio.
Why is it that when people say “all due respect” they always insult you? 🙂
And what’s the implied ad-hominem? The fact that I’ve vaguely referenced that I’m blown away by the fact that you two would advocate limiting suffrage as the solution to a political problem? If I was advocating burning babies for fuel I’d expect you to be appalled. There was no ad-hominem, it wasn’t an argument, it was simply a comment on how shocked I am at your solution. I’m so shocked that I’ve actually given this thought outside of sitting here at the computer. I was driving to work yesterday and was trying to wrap my head around what you are suggesting.
And come on, accusing me of fuzzy prescriptions? What exactly is it that you two are advocating? I don’t even think you could come close to laying it out in coherent terms. That’s fine, but don’t accuse me of being the one who isn’t laying out their policy ideas in stone.
In the end though, I’m pretty fucking insulted that I’m being compared to right-win loonies. Let me recap my post:
1.) I think that limiting suffrage to achieve political goals is against what this country stand for.
2.) I think that the problem you outline is not as dire as you make it out to be.
3.) BTW, here’s a practical way to resolve the issues that I think apply.
So, gee, that seems to be pretty far off from the kind of stuff you’ll hear from Limbaugh/Hannity/etc. If it’s not, then I’m not really sure what is.
In fact, I think I’m being relatively restrained. I think that if I were Hannity or Limbaugh right now I’d be dropping the F-bomb (Fascist!) right now. I mean, while I don’t think that applies to what you are advocating, if ever there were a move in the history of the United States that would be closest, this would be it.
Further, you act as if we would have to do this because passage of reform would be impossible. How then would you pass a bill limiting suffrage? You think passing social security reform would be difficult? Try removing the right to vote from people.
Do you propose revolution? Reformation into an entirely new form of government? Good luck with that. If I’m reading wrong what you are advocating please let me know, but I find the idea that I am the one with the high-falutin rhetoric and fuzzy prescriptions to be laughable compared to what I’m seeing advocated by yourself and Gahrie.
Pthread, your “practical solution” relies on two critical assumptions:
1) National politicians (of all stripes) are not inherently motivated to grow entitlements – and the resulting power base.
2) The crisis of entitlements is a unifying, commonly-faced one, similar to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.
Without any associated respect, perhaps the simplest way to think of the foolishness of both the above planks to your argument is via the irrational, value-destroying farming subsidies that have been going on seemingly forever and will do so with no end in sight.
If there’s a non-biased national commenter who sees those subsidies as resulting from the farmers’ fascination with the common good, and not rather with them extracting what they can get from the collective body, with pandering politicians playing along – for fear of influential Iowa caucuses – will you please point that out? I don’t read everything, but its hard to imagine anyone seriously advancing such an argument.
You say
if given a choice between a raised retirement age and nothing at all, people will pick the raised retirement age.
What does that have to do with anything? How does that change the fact that, like the subsidy-extracting farmer, the dowager is going to vote for whichever candidate promises her the most money? The details of your posed choice were a bit extraneous to the current conversation to merit bolding, it seems to me.
What you have not yet addressed, what is at the heart of both mine and Gahrie’s arguments, is that politicians, by their very nature, are motivated to grow the problem of entitlements and not address it. Let’s suppose that we somehow make it past the baby-boomer bulge still somewhat afloat, and the demographic winds grow more favorable. Two things might happen:
1) Politicians, relieved that we have escaped doom, use the opportunity presented by favorable demographics really to make continued positive changes to the nation’s entitlement environment.
2) Politicians, recognizing the opportunity to promise new handouts, use the opportunity presented by favorable demographics really to make new promises of free money in order to buttress other problems with their candidacies.
Let me put it to you straight, I’m voting for the second set of politicians, if the giveaways have me or my family in scope. Cause while I feel all manner of abstract things like patriotism, collective responsibility, etc, at the end of the day I also really like free things. Does anyone – with a straight face – disagree?
Finally, what is my prescription for change? How the hell do I know? I don’t even have the details of what the limited franchise would look like, other than to say that I am pretty sure that whatever the details, Gahrie and I would disagree. But that, too, is extraneous to this conversation.
Because you are arguing that full universal suffrage is absolutely, positively the optimal solution in the era of entitlements, a notion that Gahrie and I have gone to great lengths to describe as absurd.
That we don’t know the route to addressing it doesn’t at all refute the fact that full universal suffrage and entitlement mania just don’t mix.
One other thing, in case it wasn’t clear by now: in response to Gahrie and I separately raising alarm bells that the creeping entitlementification of America was turning us all into the equivalent of those Iowa farmers, with seriously negative consequences for our future, you
–Implicitly suggested we were un-American (“…breaks with any tradition…”),
–and suggested that just raising taxes on “rich” people will kick the can down the road far enough, that, I guess, the can will subsequently just disappear or something.
I stand by my earlier statement: if the left ever figures out a way to come up with an ideological counterpart to Rush Limbaugh, an argument like the above would make for excellent radio on a drive-time Tuesday afternoon.
Jazz – the problem with raising taxes yet further on “rich” people is not that it “will kick the can down the road far enough“, but rather that it will kick away the “rich” people – sinc they have the ability to be mobile, most of the time … the ones who aren’t mobile (small farm owners, small business owners), just get driven out of business …
Alasdair, a comment like yours above will meet resistance from some, as they will believe that the rich are just assholes for not doing their part, and frankly, coming from someone carrying a reputation for being partisan right-wing, they may even perceive you to be an apologist for rich people. Which, for all I know, you may be…
…but folks should consider the following: suppose you were a neurologist, working at a hospital in a mid-sized city, doing a lot of work with the elderly (and thus getting Medicare rates), and also doing some work to help out the local VA with wounded soldiers. Your total salary is $200 K/yr, which is a lot of money. If you moved to the fancy private practice in the big city, where you would no longer help the troops – or take as many of the needy elderly – you could make twice your current salary, but $200 K/yr is still. a lot. of money.
$200 K is $16.6 K/month (a lot of money). The federal, state, and local tax authorities take almost half of that off the top, leaving you with, call it, $8.5 K/month of disposable income (still, a lot of money).
You’re a doctor, a specialist to boot, so you have $250 K of student loan debt. You would like to pay off that debt before you retire, so you’re on an aggressive repayment plan, which costs you $2.5 K/month (after the tax writeoff). After student loan, you’ve got $6 K/month left (still, a lot of money…but not as much).
You have to live in a decent house to maintain your credibility as a physician. Between your mortgage, insurance, and taxes, your house cost is another $2.5 K/month. Now you’re left with $3.5 K/month.
You and your spouse can’t drive bad cars. Even though you don’t drive anything excessive, cars are another $800/month between you. You’re left with $2.7 K/month.
With that $2.7 K, you have to:
-Feed your family
-Clothe your family
-Pay your bills
-Pay for entertainment, travel, etc.
-Make charitable donations
-Contribute to retirement funds
-Contribute to your children’s education funds
-Etc
Now if someone were to come along and say, Well, you’re rich, making $200 K/year, how about if you do your part with the doubled SS cap, costing you $500 (of the remaining $2700 per month for all the things listed above)….
…how long before you head downtown for that fancy, much more lucrative job?
Depending on your circumstances, $200 K/yr is far from rich. Which is one more factor driving the looming crisis of entitlement insanity.
Jazz
Why do you think I made the comment I made ?
California’s economy, which is about 10% of the US economy is going down the tubes because the mobile rich are moving to other states … prosperous companies are moving to other states or offshore so that they can remain prosperous …
Class envy thinking sounds good to those who have not yet learned just what it does in reality, whether on the financial front or on the educational front, or even the medical front …
I’d much prefer to see new treatments go to the rich first, as long as, once they are ‘perfected’ in that way, they then become available to gradually more and more people … those who manage to require that they go to the poorest folk first simply deprive everyone of the innovation …
(grin) So how is *your* reputation being partisan whichever-wing-you-are doing ?
Oh, and before the strawmen start flooding into this, there are all sorts of reasons that the mobile rich are leaving California more and more – and those reasons are also contributing to the plummet of the Californian economy …
Hmmm – I wonder which party OWNS both the Houses of the Legislature in California ?