It's been over 20 years since I've been in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois. Or is it Champaign-Urbana? Either way, it was about what I remembered... overcast, cold, windy. But it was a lot colder in Memorial Stadium for Illini fans on Saturday since the Buckeyes stomped them to win back the Illibuck (a wooden turtle substituted after the live one expired)(oh yeah, and the Illini juniors won't actually hand it back to their Buckeye counterparts until next year... kind of a weird trophy/ritual, eh?)
Anyhoo, had I given much more thought than I did to this trip when I first learned I was invited back in September - when it was still quite warm and the 5-hour bus ride after my 3-hour drive to Sidney was still months away - I probably would not have gone, but it turned out to be pretty cool.
I went with two brothers- and a father-in-law and though we were all rather tired after beginning the bus trip at 5 am, and all pretty much passed out by (some of us, like me, well before) 9 pm Saturday night, it turned out to be a good time thanks to the Buck's victory and that team from up north's loss. A hatred of that team up north seems to be universal throughout the Big 10 as the entire stadium cheered in unison when the Northwestern score appeared on the scoreboard.
There were at least as many people in scarlet and gray on our side of the field as there were in orange and blue, and most of us were civil, even cordial with each other throughout. There's always that one fan though... and this poor guy got paid back in spades when he left with 2:30 left on the clock. He had just announced loudly an Illini fumble recovery for a huge gain, but when the play was reviewed, overturned, and the ball returned to Ohio State so we could just run out the clock, he and his buddy (who apologized for this guy's behavior all day) got up and left as though no one would notice. That was the loudest the crowd got throughout the game. Cracked me up... the guys next to me too, and they were Illinois fans! I really didn't think the guy was being that obnoxious. I was entertained, but apparently he'd pissed off a lot of others and they were glad to return the favor when he left.
Anyhoo, it was a great game, the rain held off, there was beer for breakfast supplied by our hosts on what was billed as a "non-alcoholic trip," I got my picture taken with a Woody Hayes impersonator, I slept for about 12 hours before the long ride home Sunday morning, and life was, in almost all respects, good.
Except for one thing that's bugging me. I hear Obama has made it clear that he won't support so-called "sagging pants ordinances" like those made famous in Florida. He considers them a waste of time at a time when our nation has bigger fish to fry.
I'm disappointed in his judgment. If we as a nation won't enforce laws upholding common decency, it won't be long before everything goes to hell in the old basket. There will be guns, drugs, crime, unemployment, witches and all kinds of evil overrunning us. For the love of Bob, man do something about the PANTS!
Luth,
Out
Monday, November 17, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yes we can
I wonder if the way I felt last night and this morning is what people felt when Kennedy was elected. I've never been as excited, and a little scared, over a presidential election in my life.
I remain amazed that people whose parents were born into slavery were able to vote for America's first black president. I was alive to see that. I participated in that. I am proud of my country today... proud in spite of the vitriol Rush Limbaugh is already spewing about the 50 million voters who didn't vote Obama. Rush needed to pay a little more attention to Senator McCain's speech last night.
The fear I feel is the same kind of fear when I take on something new at work... something I'm not sure I can do. It's that fear that makes we want to try it. Without that fear once in a while, I'd be looking for another job. That fear is what gets me out of bed in the morning. The work part is just beginning and I hope that we are ready for it.
For some the hardest part will be throwing away the old model - this is not to say that everything W has done is wrong. He actually got some things right in the second term, quietly, without ever admitting they were wrong in the first term, but what I mean is the model that says government is meant to be tolerated rather than is supposed to serve. Perhaps that's why the line about "government that governs least governs best" is so popular. I don't disagree, necessarily, but if government was really helpful (say, for instance, like VHA!) wouldn't we want it to do more? Anyway, that old model... the fear mongering, the divisive party sniping, has got to go if we're ever to solve the large and complex problems facing us. I'm not saying Obama can lead us through this any better than any other candidate... well, OK, maybe better than Palin, but rather, the enthusiasm, the turnout, the depth of involvement in our political system that he inspired in so many people CAN bring about change that we never imagined possible. We've got to start believing that.
If all we expect from our government is that it doesn't interfere too much with our lives and it doesn't screw up too much, then why would we be surprised if that's all we ever get from our government. I truly feel that Obama's history-making win is a sign that we're ready to expect more... that we believe something better can and should come from government. I believe it means we've decided it's time our government worked in a way that makes us actually want more of it.
I admit I'm not a history buff, but I don't ever remember hearing of a presidential candidate who energized people the way Obama and his campaign did. He is often criticized for having never lead anything bigger than a senate staff or the Harvard Law Review. Not that those aren't impressive credentials, but they pale by comparison to the campaign he pulled off. The money he raise, largely in small contributions, the numbers he motivated to turn out, the absence of game-changing mistakes and the 50-state effort should put to rest the idea that he is not ready to lead a nation. He already has.
Now if that nation is ready to be lead, to believe that we can once again be what our dreams tell us we can, and if Obama can do in office what he managed on the campaign trail, then I don't think we can be stopped. There was a lot of talk during the last few years about how every empire eventually falls and that our time seemed close, but I don't think we're ready for that just yet. I think we've got a little more of a run.
For such a relatively young nation, America often comes off as arrogant... arrogant beyond its years. But so do naive kids. The upside of this is that the same youthful naivete also makes youngsters quick learners and less resistant to change. Kids learn fast because they don't worry as much about embarrassing themselves. (and they'e not afraid of bumps and bruises) They can adapt more readily because they aren't trapped in ruts. I believe the results of this election prove our young nation has exhibited those positive youthful traits. I think we're ready. I think change is beginning. It'll be a little scary. It will take some work. It will probably involve a little arguing, but I think we're worth it. I also think what we can offer the rest of the world once we get back on track might erase some of the years it would otherwise take to fix our reputation outside our borders.
Dropping the old model will be tough for many. Creating a better replacement will be even tougher. But it's worth it.
I think it's an exciting time to be alive. Who's with me?
Luth,
Out
I remain amazed that people whose parents were born into slavery were able to vote for America's first black president. I was alive to see that. I participated in that. I am proud of my country today... proud in spite of the vitriol Rush Limbaugh is already spewing about the 50 million voters who didn't vote Obama. Rush needed to pay a little more attention to Senator McCain's speech last night.
The fear I feel is the same kind of fear when I take on something new at work... something I'm not sure I can do. It's that fear that makes we want to try it. Without that fear once in a while, I'd be looking for another job. That fear is what gets me out of bed in the morning. The work part is just beginning and I hope that we are ready for it.
For some the hardest part will be throwing away the old model - this is not to say that everything W has done is wrong. He actually got some things right in the second term, quietly, without ever admitting they were wrong in the first term, but what I mean is the model that says government is meant to be tolerated rather than is supposed to serve. Perhaps that's why the line about "government that governs least governs best" is so popular. I don't disagree, necessarily, but if government was really helpful (say, for instance, like VHA!) wouldn't we want it to do more? Anyway, that old model... the fear mongering, the divisive party sniping, has got to go if we're ever to solve the large and complex problems facing us. I'm not saying Obama can lead us through this any better than any other candidate... well, OK, maybe better than Palin, but rather, the enthusiasm, the turnout, the depth of involvement in our political system that he inspired in so many people CAN bring about change that we never imagined possible. We've got to start believing that.
If all we expect from our government is that it doesn't interfere too much with our lives and it doesn't screw up too much, then why would we be surprised if that's all we ever get from our government. I truly feel that Obama's history-making win is a sign that we're ready to expect more... that we believe something better can and should come from government. I believe it means we've decided it's time our government worked in a way that makes us actually want more of it.
I admit I'm not a history buff, but I don't ever remember hearing of a presidential candidate who energized people the way Obama and his campaign did. He is often criticized for having never lead anything bigger than a senate staff or the Harvard Law Review. Not that those aren't impressive credentials, but they pale by comparison to the campaign he pulled off. The money he raise, largely in small contributions, the numbers he motivated to turn out, the absence of game-changing mistakes and the 50-state effort should put to rest the idea that he is not ready to lead a nation. He already has.
Now if that nation is ready to be lead, to believe that we can once again be what our dreams tell us we can, and if Obama can do in office what he managed on the campaign trail, then I don't think we can be stopped. There was a lot of talk during the last few years about how every empire eventually falls and that our time seemed close, but I don't think we're ready for that just yet. I think we've got a little more of a run.
For such a relatively young nation, America often comes off as arrogant... arrogant beyond its years. But so do naive kids. The upside of this is that the same youthful naivete also makes youngsters quick learners and less resistant to change. Kids learn fast because they don't worry as much about embarrassing themselves. (and they'e not afraid of bumps and bruises) They can adapt more readily because they aren't trapped in ruts. I believe the results of this election prove our young nation has exhibited those positive youthful traits. I think we're ready. I think change is beginning. It'll be a little scary. It will take some work. It will probably involve a little arguing, but I think we're worth it. I also think what we can offer the rest of the world once we get back on track might erase some of the years it would otherwise take to fix our reputation outside our borders.
Dropping the old model will be tough for many. Creating a better replacement will be even tougher. But it's worth it.
I think it's an exciting time to be alive. Who's with me?
Luth,
Out
Monday, November 03, 2008
Tomorrow's the big day/Luth's tax plan
Will we decide we're ready to get on with our lives, that government should serve us and not just be tolerated by us? Who knows. I'm sure the changes we're all holding our collective breath for are beyond the reach of any one president, but I'm also pretty sure another rich white guy who doesn't seem to know what he stands for and who's running mate is less qualified than my father-in-law (seriously) to run the country ain't the answer.
I had hoped to discuss a lot of things on here before now. I had hoped to give a brief lesson on the Laffer Curve, made most famous outside of economic circles in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off by Ben Stein's character... and how even conservative economists all but shot it down within its first year in public light because, among various other problems with it, one interpretation is that if it's true, and if we haven't reached the peak point of taxation, then MORE taxes are the answer to economic growth, not less. Another problem is that there was never enough data to suggest this wasn't the case. Turns out it's almost impossible to follow up on the theory of such a dynamic issue using only static data. That's why the theory is discredited among economists but works so well in a campaign wherein the greatest virtue seems to be being just like Joe the (insert trade of choice here)rather than having some complex vision for our future. If you don't have to think it through, it sounds great. It's Limbaugh Logic and it polls all too well with Joe Six Pack!
I had hoped to talk more about how or why John McCain somehow escaped the scrutiny faced by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards. I still don't get that. Since the primaries started, I've been amazed by what I've learned about Senator McCain. As I've made abundantly clear, I really thought he was one of few congressmen earning his keep, but looking back over his career (military and political) now makes him look a lot more like someone who simply latched on to what would gain him some ground for his next election. And I get that you have to win before you can do anything else, but if his plan is different from W's, then he hasn't really proposed anything else yet... except a McCain victory, which, based on his career history, is about all he's planned.
I don't know if a president has the ability to truly shape our economy, but I know that the guy who turned the place over to W left him some extra money, a warning about Bin Laden, and a rolling economy. Eight years later we're back in the extrapolated Reagan era - big business is rolling in it while the rest of us are wondering what we'll have to cut next... still waiting for the trickle. It didn't work for Reagan in most senses and it isn't working now.
I have an economic theory that those of us in the bottom 95% really make up more of our economy than we're given credit for. Even in these economic times, we still have to fill our tanks, buy groceries, pay the bills. That day to day spending IS the American economy. Yacht, mansion, and Bentley orders may be down, but we still have to get to the store weekly to keep the cupboards full, even if the economy means they're full of peanut butter, jelly and store brand bread. The bottom 95% of income earners in America are the ones who buy the products that the top 5% are selling. The last eight years have proven that they can only rob from us for so long before we don't have any money left to buy anything anymore. That's when the economy collapses. That's where we are. That's why a progressive tax makes at least as much sense as the Laffer Curve as an economic principle.
A progressive tax plan says simply that those who benefit most from the resources government provides pay the most for those resources. Is it really that crazy? Is that really socialist? (maybe in the sense that FDR, Warren Buffet, Allan Greespan and John McCain are, well used to be, socialists) I drive one car on the road, have one house that needs fire protection, draws electricity off the public grid, etc. and so on. Should I really pay a larger portion of my income for those roads, power, etc. than Sam Walton (for instance), who as a result of using the entire country's roads, power grids, sewers, etc. also pockets more profit than I ever aspire to? There's nothing wrong with him making as much money as he has, but it comes with a tax liability equal to if not in excess of my own. Is it really crazy to think otherwise? I'll share that burden with him in the form of sales taxes and abatements to defray the cost of him opening up a new store, but after that, he's on his own. Is that really too much to ask? Is that perspective so crazy?
Look at it this way: I have a house, he has a house. I have an income, he has an income. I have a job, he has a job. So far we're equal and we're taxed equally. but Sam also has a fleet of trucks spread out across the American highways. He's got stores and warehouses scattered over every state. Each one requires government funded roads, power, water, sewer, police and fire protection. Given that I don't profit from all of those assets, why should I share the tax burden they require?
Jobs you say? Sure those assets of Sam's provide jobs... for people who also pay income taxes, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes. The only guy left out of the picture here in the Laffer Curve model is the owner of that vast network. The burden is his. It is NOT a penalty for his success, it's his responsibility. Let me repeat that, it is NOT a penalty for his success. It is his RESPONSIBILITY. It is the part of the American dream that begets future American dreams. If Sam's stuff sucks up more of those services we're all paying for, then Sam needs to pay more than those of us who aren't sucking up more of the services. It is selfish to think otherwise. It is unpatriotic to think otherwise. It is greedy to think otherwise. It is illogical to think otherwise. That burden is Sam's. That burden can only be shouldered by the bottom 95% of American taxpayers for so long. We're reaping the results of the flawed Laffer Curve model being the basis of our economy for 20 of the last 28 years. How much longer must we test a theory we know to be flawed. How much more of "the wealth" must be redistributed from the bottom 95% to the top 5% before we can no longer afford those roads, power grids, services any longer?
Redistribution of wealth isn't some abomination of a libertarian tax plan in a capitalist society, it's one of the primary reasons for taxes. Taxes fund government and government provides the basic services that would be unreasonable for individuals, including individual corporations, to provide on their own. Asking those who use and benefit most from those services to pay the most for them isn't socialist. In fact little could be more American. We all pay our own way here... except for all those things we share the cost of that government provides. Why shouldn't Sam pay his share of that?
I doubt anyone who would be swayed by my ramblings will read this before they head to the polls tomorrow, but there's always 2012.
Here's to a bright new America, starting Wednesday!
Luth,
Out
I had hoped to discuss a lot of things on here before now. I had hoped to give a brief lesson on the Laffer Curve, made most famous outside of economic circles in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off by Ben Stein's character... and how even conservative economists all but shot it down within its first year in public light because, among various other problems with it, one interpretation is that if it's true, and if we haven't reached the peak point of taxation, then MORE taxes are the answer to economic growth, not less. Another problem is that there was never enough data to suggest this wasn't the case. Turns out it's almost impossible to follow up on the theory of such a dynamic issue using only static data. That's why the theory is discredited among economists but works so well in a campaign wherein the greatest virtue seems to be being just like Joe the (insert trade of choice here)rather than having some complex vision for our future. If you don't have to think it through, it sounds great. It's Limbaugh Logic and it polls all too well with Joe Six Pack!
I had hoped to talk more about how or why John McCain somehow escaped the scrutiny faced by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards. I still don't get that. Since the primaries started, I've been amazed by what I've learned about Senator McCain. As I've made abundantly clear, I really thought he was one of few congressmen earning his keep, but looking back over his career (military and political) now makes him look a lot more like someone who simply latched on to what would gain him some ground for his next election. And I get that you have to win before you can do anything else, but if his plan is different from W's, then he hasn't really proposed anything else yet... except a McCain victory, which, based on his career history, is about all he's planned.
I don't know if a president has the ability to truly shape our economy, but I know that the guy who turned the place over to W left him some extra money, a warning about Bin Laden, and a rolling economy. Eight years later we're back in the extrapolated Reagan era - big business is rolling in it while the rest of us are wondering what we'll have to cut next... still waiting for the trickle. It didn't work for Reagan in most senses and it isn't working now.
I have an economic theory that those of us in the bottom 95% really make up more of our economy than we're given credit for. Even in these economic times, we still have to fill our tanks, buy groceries, pay the bills. That day to day spending IS the American economy. Yacht, mansion, and Bentley orders may be down, but we still have to get to the store weekly to keep the cupboards full, even if the economy means they're full of peanut butter, jelly and store brand bread. The bottom 95% of income earners in America are the ones who buy the products that the top 5% are selling. The last eight years have proven that they can only rob from us for so long before we don't have any money left to buy anything anymore. That's when the economy collapses. That's where we are. That's why a progressive tax makes at least as much sense as the Laffer Curve as an economic principle.
A progressive tax plan says simply that those who benefit most from the resources government provides pay the most for those resources. Is it really that crazy? Is that really socialist? (maybe in the sense that FDR, Warren Buffet, Allan Greespan and John McCain are, well used to be, socialists) I drive one car on the road, have one house that needs fire protection, draws electricity off the public grid, etc. and so on. Should I really pay a larger portion of my income for those roads, power, etc. than Sam Walton (for instance), who as a result of using the entire country's roads, power grids, sewers, etc. also pockets more profit than I ever aspire to? There's nothing wrong with him making as much money as he has, but it comes with a tax liability equal to if not in excess of my own. Is it really crazy to think otherwise? I'll share that burden with him in the form of sales taxes and abatements to defray the cost of him opening up a new store, but after that, he's on his own. Is that really too much to ask? Is that perspective so crazy?
Look at it this way: I have a house, he has a house. I have an income, he has an income. I have a job, he has a job. So far we're equal and we're taxed equally. but Sam also has a fleet of trucks spread out across the American highways. He's got stores and warehouses scattered over every state. Each one requires government funded roads, power, water, sewer, police and fire protection. Given that I don't profit from all of those assets, why should I share the tax burden they require?
Jobs you say? Sure those assets of Sam's provide jobs... for people who also pay income taxes, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes. The only guy left out of the picture here in the Laffer Curve model is the owner of that vast network. The burden is his. It is NOT a penalty for his success, it's his responsibility. Let me repeat that, it is NOT a penalty for his success. It is his RESPONSIBILITY. It is the part of the American dream that begets future American dreams. If Sam's stuff sucks up more of those services we're all paying for, then Sam needs to pay more than those of us who aren't sucking up more of the services. It is selfish to think otherwise. It is unpatriotic to think otherwise. It is greedy to think otherwise. It is illogical to think otherwise. That burden is Sam's. That burden can only be shouldered by the bottom 95% of American taxpayers for so long. We're reaping the results of the flawed Laffer Curve model being the basis of our economy for 20 of the last 28 years. How much longer must we test a theory we know to be flawed. How much more of "the wealth" must be redistributed from the bottom 95% to the top 5% before we can no longer afford those roads, power grids, services any longer?
Redistribution of wealth isn't some abomination of a libertarian tax plan in a capitalist society, it's one of the primary reasons for taxes. Taxes fund government and government provides the basic services that would be unreasonable for individuals, including individual corporations, to provide on their own. Asking those who use and benefit most from those services to pay the most for them isn't socialist. In fact little could be more American. We all pay our own way here... except for all those things we share the cost of that government provides. Why shouldn't Sam pay his share of that?
I doubt anyone who would be swayed by my ramblings will read this before they head to the polls tomorrow, but there's always 2012.
Here's to a bright new America, starting Wednesday!
Luth,
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)