I have to go to work... but while I'm gone can someone help me see how these fair tax notes are ad hom. attacks? Maybe I'm just missing it... if there is something I'm missing or being unfair in asking feel free to comment on it. gotta to run to work for now...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
And another one
If John McCain supports Free Markets then Adam ...
by
A_SpeculativeFiction
Make Customized TShirts At Zazzle.com
See other Current Events T-Shirts
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
on that thing called the mind...
Your Brain Lies to You
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like “I think I read somewhere” or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to “stop the smears,” the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students’ impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes’s ideal.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
By SAM WANG and SANDRA AAMODT
FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.
The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.
This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.
With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.
Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like “I think I read somewhere” or even with a reference to a specific source.
In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.
Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.
In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.
Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.
Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to “stop the smears,” the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.
Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students’ impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.
In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.
In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes’s ideal.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
New Tshirt design... buy one and you help me afford a laptop!
Republicans...Not afraid to fight a war without...
by
A_SpeculativeFiction
Design a Custom Shirt With www.Zazzle.com
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Reading on Gilbert Ryle...
and came to this interesting passage...
Philosophy is the duel between perceptions and reality? Is social science the duel between technicians (scientists, bureaucrats...) and layman from differing tribes?
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
The most philosophically interesting questions arise for those cases of conflict that present themselves again and again. We speak in the same breath of a responsible human agent who is, and acts, in a world that is a field of physical, chemical, and biological causes and effects. “Men must, we feel, be free; yet they must, we feel, be amenable to prediction and explanation. Their actions cannot be mechanical. Yet also they cannot be unmechanical” (1962a, 444). From the point of view of laymen and scientists who are actually exploring the world, we find out what there is by perceiving it; yet from the point of view of the inquirer into the mechanism of perception, what we perceive never coincides with the world (1954, 2). The reconciliation of these convictions, an answer to the question how this could be, belongs to philosophy.
Philosophy is the duel between perceptions and reality? Is social science the duel between technicians (scientists, bureaucrats...) and layman from differing tribes?
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Things Jim needs to read when he has time...
Originalism is Bunk
Thoery of Games and Economic Behavior
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Thoery of Games and Economic Behavior
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
poem blogging...
My Age While I Read Rimbaud
I notice I am seventy-five
Today this evening I am reminded of this
Even while thinking I am twenty
Twenty and in love verging on passion
Why now do I remember
Why now remember which
Who I am now
Who I was then
I am twenty
And I remember
When I was seventy-five
6/16/08
Copyright 2008 by Maurice Leiter
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Saturday, June 28, 2008
gone...
Blogging for today has been short and sweet... I'm off to an Obama house party and then to see ASO perform Beethoven
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Robert Spano leads the Orchestra in an evening dedicated to the music of Beethoven including his famed 5th Symphony. The evening will also feature Beethoven’s stellar "Emperor" piano concertos.Yeah... life is fun...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Political Talking Points
The conniving politician:
To the cynical politicians are corrupt and evil statement I always ask...
Why attack politicians? We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger. The only true critique of corruption in government is your own participation in the political process.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
To the cynical politicians are corrupt and evil statement I always ask...
Why attack politicians? We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger. The only true critique of corruption in government is your own participation in the political process.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Fair tax...
Long in delay and far far far from complete. But I typed up the notes I've started making as I read The Fair Tax book by Boortz/Linder. My goal once I understand the plan is to plug in the numbers to see if I would benift from this plan. But to be fair before I can do that I need to understand the purpose and point of such a dramatic change therefore I'm reading the book and then I'll read the bill.
Feel free to comment on the first section of notes... don't have time to finish typing up the rest I have written--why I need a lap-top!--so bare with me.
-----------------
Fair Tax Book -- Jim's notes
John Linder introduction:
“Adam smith said that the invisible hand of the economy creates efficient markets. That is true. It is also true that the IRS is the lead foot on the throat of our economy.”
Questions
1.Did Adam Smith really talk about the invisible hand of the economy... or the invisible hand of individuals in that economy? I dunno
2. When you look at Adam Smith entire system of though does he believe taxes are unnecessary at all–more specifically a closer reading of wealth of nations and his theory of moral sentiment would be requried for me to best answer this. As I understand Adam Smith I would say no but to be fair I have only read parts of Smith’s work... though I have learned quite quickly that most people get Smith wrong which seems to be the case here.
2. Look at the US economy as compared to more progressive tax countries... are we behind or ahead?
------
Broader question 1. Why do they focus all their attacks/ire on the IRS? Is it because attacking the government would not be politically popular? Attacking programs want and need would not be politically popular?
-----
Boortz intro xiv “It [this book on the fair tax] is about getting 100% of your paycheck every second Friday. It about being able to save and invest, for your future and for the future of your nations economy, without worrying one momnet about the tax consequences.
Questions 1: What would be fair about that? You didn’t/don’t earn this pay on your own. It is part of a shared value which you help bring in. If you got 100% of the rewards from your work wouldn’t you be the lead foot on the economy?
Question 2: Don’t we already have people not worrying one moment about the consequences of their financial behavior. I’d say that some people with credit card debit, no saving for retirement, no health insurance that then requires government expenditures... I’d say some of them are already not thinking about their financial behaviors. That’s why for my own protection and economic viability I applaud certain government investment to protect citizens from other citizens who are either reckless or incapable of sound economic thinking that would harm themselves or the broader economy.
-----
Broader question 2: Why is everything in this book about “you”? Is it desirable or even rational to promote the idea that it is every man for themselves? I was raised to believe that we are all in this together and that if you see a man beaten by the side of the road you don’t walk to the other side. If you do help him and you only do it for yourself... that would still be wrong because you aren’t doing it out of compassion but of vanity.
------
XV “Our current tax system–no matter how friendly it may be to the dreams of politicans–is your dire enemy if you dream of financial idependence. Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and reqards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our sociey who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels. Eschew hard work, follow the path of least reistance...
Question 1: The conniving politician question: why do they keep attacking politicians. We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger.
---------
p. xvi "You'll also learn how politicans have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government..."
question: What are the legitimate operations of government? Wonder if they'll get to that one...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Feel free to comment on the first section of notes... don't have time to finish typing up the rest I have written--why I need a lap-top!--so bare with me.
-----------------
Fair Tax Book -- Jim's notes
John Linder introduction:
“Adam smith said that the invisible hand of the economy creates efficient markets. That is true. It is also true that the IRS is the lead foot on the throat of our economy.”
Questions
1.Did Adam Smith really talk about the invisible hand of the economy... or the invisible hand of individuals in that economy? I dunno
2. When you look at Adam Smith entire system of though does he believe taxes are unnecessary at all–more specifically a closer reading of wealth of nations and his theory of moral sentiment would be requried for me to best answer this. As I understand Adam Smith I would say no but to be fair I have only read parts of Smith’s work... though I have learned quite quickly that most people get Smith wrong which seems to be the case here.
2. Look at the US economy as compared to more progressive tax countries... are we behind or ahead?
------
Broader question 1. Why do they focus all their attacks/ire on the IRS? Is it because attacking the government would not be politically popular? Attacking programs want and need would not be politically popular?
-----
Boortz intro xiv “It [this book on the fair tax] is about getting 100% of your paycheck every second Friday. It about being able to save and invest, for your future and for the future of your nations economy, without worrying one momnet about the tax consequences.
Questions 1: What would be fair about that? You didn’t/don’t earn this pay on your own. It is part of a shared value which you help bring in. If you got 100% of the rewards from your work wouldn’t you be the lead foot on the economy?
Question 2: Don’t we already have people not worrying one moment about the consequences of their financial behavior. I’d say that some people with credit card debit, no saving for retirement, no health insurance that then requires government expenditures... I’d say some of them are already not thinking about their financial behaviors. That’s why for my own protection and economic viability I applaud certain government investment to protect citizens from other citizens who are either reckless or incapable of sound economic thinking that would harm themselves or the broader economy.
-----
Broader question 2: Why is everything in this book about “you”? Is it desirable or even rational to promote the idea that it is every man for themselves? I was raised to believe that we are all in this together and that if you see a man beaten by the side of the road you don’t walk to the other side. If you do help him and you only do it for yourself... that would still be wrong because you aren’t doing it out of compassion but of vanity.
------
XV “Our current tax system–no matter how friendly it may be to the dreams of politicans–is your dire enemy if you dream of financial idependence. Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and reqards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our sociey who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels. Eschew hard work, follow the path of least reistance...
Question 1: The conniving politician question: why do they keep attacking politicians. We live in a Republic. These politicians represent constituents. If they didn’t they would get kicked out. Money is a pretty big constituent right now–which is why I support election/campaign reform. But you also have elite opinion and the general opinion of the public at large. So politicians are evil only in the sense that the interests of their constituents are evil. Why abstract away from that... and just blame the guilty parties. Ad hominem attacks on politicians makes people more cynical about government–there by less likely to participate, there by the likelihood for corruption grows larger.
---------
p. xvi "You'll also learn how politicans have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government..."
question: What are the legitimate operations of government? Wonder if they'll get to that one...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
quote after an exhausting first real day working at UPS
This job is going to work my butt off. Damn it felt good to be working again--you really learn to appreciate a job once you've worked at a place for over a year and a half only to be told...sorry... when you try to cut your own hours and step down in pay just to go finish school
My new best friend is going to be the gym for now. I'm not strong enough yet...
“I believe that one defines oneself by reinvention. To not be like your parents. To not be like your friends. To be yourself. To cut yourself out of stone.” --Henry Rollins
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
My new best friend is going to be the gym for now. I'm not strong enough yet...
“I believe that one defines oneself by reinvention. To not be like your parents. To not be like your friends. To be yourself. To cut yourself out of stone.” --Henry Rollins
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Maybe not so spartan this morning...
So I wasn't exactly the most chipper man to walk in the door last night--sorry my love--so 2 am came verty quickly! Sigh... had henry county Democratic meeting last night. More productive than last meeting, but I'm still not on my game when it comes to running it effectively, smoothly, and getting us out the door on time.
Then I feel unchairman like cause I have to try to run people out the door... which I didn't do all to well since I didn't leave until 9:30 when we technically got out at 8:45.
Oh well. Logic midterm today. Paper on Nietzsche due tomorrow--which still needs major work.
Will leave you with a shot I got at school yesterday.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Then I feel unchairman like cause I have to try to run people out the door... which I didn't do all to well since I didn't leave until 9:30 when we technically got out at 8:45.
Oh well. Logic midterm today. Paper on Nietzsche due tomorrow--which still needs major work.
Will leave you with a shot I got at school yesterday.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
to bed by 11:45pm up at 3:04 and the shortness of a 30 days supply of lamictal
Worked on the Freud for todays class until nearly 12. Up bright and early (tomorrow it'll be even earlier since I'm only going at 5am to train. On todays agenda--UPS 5:00-9am, back to Henry County to pick up keys for tonights Henry Democrats meeting, to Indian Creek to GA State by aprox. 12:15 in the library check email, print off paper, finish frued. Lunch on the way to office hours at 1pm, more food on the way to class 1:35pm. Class 1;50-3:40. Back to marta, 285 to not be backed up we hope. Food, drink, notes for tomorrows logic mid-term. 7:00pm-9:15pm tops Henry Dems. Home, kiss the loved one and dog. TO bed by 10:30.
This is my life and I prety luckey. Why do it. I dunno--crazy, took that guy in Dead poets society who told me to suck the marrow of life when I was 6 pretty seriously, my medication is running low, and philosophy class--on things that don't matter but are amazingly beautiful and powerful is a preaty amazing privilige to dig into.
Grabbed the plain oatmeal for the spartan motiff I get off on.
To the kid in this pic from the philippines... hang in there...
I'm out...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
This is my life and I prety luckey. Why do it. I dunno--crazy, took that guy in Dead poets society who told me to suck the marrow of life when I was 6 pretty seriously, my medication is running low, and philosophy class--on things that don't matter but are amazingly beautiful and powerful is a preaty amazing privilige to dig into.
Grabbed the plain oatmeal for the spartan motiff I get off on.
To the kid in this pic from the philippines... hang in there...
I'm out...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Monday, June 23, 2008
Blog disclaimer
Blog Disclaimer:
The Internet age in someways has turned our world upside down. In some ways it has changed nothing at all. To those who grew up within a culture PI (pre-Internet)the idea that you post something at random scares them. What about your good name? What about future employer? Google is a verb you know!
The quandary I had to deal with before I decide to jump head first into becoming Chairman of the Henry County Democratic Party was the idea that this would open myself and my family up to attacks on my ethical standing in the community.
Because of my core Libertarian values of free speech, free expression, and open dialogue I decided that my public persona and public ideas are separate and distinct from my private life. But that to evade, hide, or run from the other aspects of my life; my shortcomings, my failures, my mistakes, and the biological and sociological challenges that I have happened upon from no fault of my own--would be unauthentic. Cynicism in politics is fed by politicians and leaders who are seen as two-faced, manipulative, and able to lie to your face.
If I'm going to step up and speak out in the community I will speak to policy and not people. And I expect the same from others. For those who want to dig into my closets, dig up my skeletons, and point to every random idea or crazy thing I have said or done--that speaks to their values, their priorities, their views on how political discourse should take place in a free and democratic society.
As a student of philosophy, a writer, artist, and cultural critic, and a human being; I expect many of the things I do, say, or question will challenge the core of who we are as a society, where we have come from, and where we are going. Our values, our priorities, our beliefs.
I hope that this venue... and other gem's of my questioning of the world that certainly can be found with next to little effort... are taken as not all encompassing or the entire story about my values, my priorities, and my beliefs that we should take care of one another and respect differences. I hope my mistakes in word, in action, and in thought--will be respected as opportunities of growth in my own life.
I will always apologize to those I have offended, work to improve behaviors that harm and hurt.
But I am a human being, failings and all. I won't run from who I am. My public life is my public life. My private life is my private life. Please do not confuse the two.
Jim Nichols
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
The Internet age in someways has turned our world upside down. In some ways it has changed nothing at all. To those who grew up within a culture PI (pre-Internet)the idea that you post something at random scares them. What about your good name? What about future employer? Google is a verb you know!
The quandary I had to deal with before I decide to jump head first into becoming Chairman of the Henry County Democratic Party was the idea that this would open myself and my family up to attacks on my ethical standing in the community.
Because of my core Libertarian values of free speech, free expression, and open dialogue I decided that my public persona and public ideas are separate and distinct from my private life. But that to evade, hide, or run from the other aspects of my life; my shortcomings, my failures, my mistakes, and the biological and sociological challenges that I have happened upon from no fault of my own--would be unauthentic. Cynicism in politics is fed by politicians and leaders who are seen as two-faced, manipulative, and able to lie to your face.
If I'm going to step up and speak out in the community I will speak to policy and not people. And I expect the same from others. For those who want to dig into my closets, dig up my skeletons, and point to every random idea or crazy thing I have said or done--that speaks to their values, their priorities, their views on how political discourse should take place in a free and democratic society.
As a student of philosophy, a writer, artist, and cultural critic, and a human being; I expect many of the things I do, say, or question will challenge the core of who we are as a society, where we have come from, and where we are going. Our values, our priorities, our beliefs.
I hope that this venue... and other gem's of my questioning of the world that certainly can be found with next to little effort... are taken as not all encompassing or the entire story about my values, my priorities, and my beliefs that we should take care of one another and respect differences. I hope my mistakes in word, in action, and in thought--will be respected as opportunities of growth in my own life.
I will always apologize to those I have offended, work to improve behaviors that harm and hurt.
But I am a human being, failings and all. I won't run from who I am. My public life is my public life. My private life is my private life. Please do not confuse the two.
Jim Nichols
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
For Ralph Waldo Emerson...
As Emerson pointed out, "consistency if the hobgoblin of fools"--and certainty allows fools to play you for one.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A moment of pause (very loud pause)
"If you want get the feeling... and you want to get it right. Then the music has got to be loud. Cause when the music hits... I feel no pain at all." --Rancid Radio
Some read my blog for the political commentary... some cause I bribe them to. I write whatever is going through my mind... sorry for those who hate the distractions--for the rest of you....
So I've been working the past couple of days on my Nietzsche paper due on Thursday.
My argument is that an understanding of Nietzsche's slave morality--and Nietzsche's thought at large--is incoherent if you look at him as anything but a Christian Thinker. That Jesus' Christian ethic was based on action that comes from inside and is based on nothing but internal determination of justification--that to act because the outside world tells you to do so is a form of corruption and human decay.
Following this logic I see Nietzsche as a continuation of this ethic rather than a challenge to it. The Jewish decline that Nietzsche points to as the beginning of the decline into slave morality is interrupted by this Jewish guy wandering in the desert who also notes the human decline and decay amongst his community... this guys words were given weight after the fact by the propagators of this slave morality--a sort of "don't look at the man behind the curtain." I'll post the paper soon.
But the true essence of this post is in the fact that between that paper, the logic mid-term I have coming up, the Henry County Democrats we are still trying to get off the ground, an Obama campaign that needs volunteers, and the satisfaction of knowing that Tuesday morning I will be going into UPS to load trucks before school--hallauugh I have a job!--I had forgotten about the Rancid show Deana and I are going to tonight!
If Deana hadn't mentioned it to me an hour ago I would have totally forgotten about it!
And out come the wolves
The ability for music to bring back sights sounds and memories that are so far back as to be lost... and bring them right into your face, into your blood, as if to reverberate through your soul eternally; is one of the amazing emotions one feels while alive.
Everybody needs those things that connect their past with the present. One never should forget ones roots. First its a connection to the world. But also from it one can gain a sense of joy and integrity that no one can ever take from you. For me one of those things is punk rock. And Rancid is one of the pivotal bands within that sphere of reference.
My name is Jim and I'm a lesser known character
"a good place where good people get food yea... help your fellow man a good thing to do." Rancid sidekickAlmost like a map I could take you from Jim at 15--freshman year of high school--getting dropped off with his girlfriend. Wide-eyed and excited by the world he was walking into. Most would see the sex, drugs, and loud rock n'roll. In some ways that probably something of what drew me into it. And maybe its only hindsight... the under the surface amidst the many drones and mindless fools there was a core of unbelievably smart and caring individuals who rejected the culture of consumption over caring, who thought integrity meant helping others up rather tearing others down, that through creativity and celebration one could overcome the pain and sadness.
Cut Here to Kill...
To comprehend this you have to learn to see people destroying themselves and those around them as symptoms, coping mechanisms, and blind rage rather than the essence of their quality. Look at the fragments rather than the whole picture you see--because you never truly see the whole picture. And fragments are a good place to start because many if not most the people I came into contact via this ideology of culture/music were fractured into thousands of piece. Breakable, sharp at the edges, and often in need of a shower or a book by Ms. Manner's.
And its not some holier than thou view that this the be all end all of living life. Everyone, everywhere, has songs that have given them meaning, kept them going no matter how hopeless. The survival of the species have been achieve through blind focrce and effort. Music could be one of the core reasons we've crawled this far into ourselves. I'm glad for every fight that got me to this point... bacteria attacking bacteria... parasitic free riding... somehow dragging itself out of the water... out of the trees... finally out into reason and high technology's that could be used to feed, cloth, and house all if we so choose.
Many people get caught up into this consumerist questions--for those who don't know... just look for words like "sold-out" "compromised" "they suck now" "indie label" "major label." To those who say the market is the essence of integrity I can only say... making money wasn't why I got into this in the first place... and if I can find a way to make money writing random philosophical texts more power to the folks who can run around the country playing music to the next generation.
To those who want to get caught up in the ethics of those who make the music... I can only say Beethoven was an asshole... but I don't get any less value from him art just cause he wasn't on the correct side of this or that political debate.
We're all humans who have scars and flaws and short comings. Oh and its music!
This is where Aaron will think i'm getting pretentious and condescending...
But there is something unique about punk rock and those who venture into the murky waters. Some will say its elitist on my part. But when I went to Shiloh Baptist earlier this month listening to this Ugandan children's choir I was blown away by the beauty and moved by the bright glowing eyes of a new generation that my country would as soon as ignore than help thrive. They have something unique that I can only appreciate from outside.
Punk rock... or whatever you want to call it--at some point words become poor descriptive tools--is something I appreciate from within.
I can tell you that from the immediate reaction that overwhelmed me when Deana reminded me of the show tonight. A youthful and arrogant joy. Its not what I'll come upon tonight... or the couple hundred drones I'll come across who are just as lost at so many outside that old turn of the century mill. IT will mean different things to me now than it did in '95 walking out the door after the Out come the wolves tour. I can still feel the breath of fresh air coming out of the club. The "wow.. when is that going to happen again," the quiet and only said to myself voice of reason "thank god... I made it out... some of those people are crazy and probably want to kick my ass."
I still see my Dad walking down North Ave. to pick us up (thanks Dad!).
But keep moving forward the feeling inside now is different than then because its locked into so many things that have happened with this soundtrack. Do you remember when Cory shot and killed the other kid? I do.
Here's another perspective... that there is something about seeing the image of your best friend playing the opening bass riff to "Journey to the End of the East Bay." in her room. Probably the second smartest person I ever met. My salvation in so many ways... my inspiration... my creative sister. Flash forward to concerts, flash forward to her heroin addiction, flash forward to the fake smiles you gave her as you listened to pathetic story's from a drug addict wasting her gifts... flash forward to discussions with her towards the end as she went in and out of the hospital in and out of coherent thinking, flash forward to getting the call that she drowned in the ocean after getting high one last time.
People look at me odd when I talk about dropping out of high school to backpack through Europe for 4 months. Its not odd at a Rancid show.
People can't comprehend why in the world someone would slash your tires and spray paint a giant swastika on your car (yeah that was a Rancid show too!). I can't comprehend why... but I can tell you what it feels like to adapt to that situation.
I can tell you the fear and adrenaline of walking back from east Berlin to west Berlin at 4 in the morning cause I was hanging out at this Artist squat drinking beer till after the subway shut down.
I can tell you what it feels like to watch friends waste away, turn away, laugh at you skaking their head--fakes, drones, intimidated by the real world. Or do you know what its like to be 26 with thousands of bills owed and your 7.50 an hour paycheck won't pay for ever your basic needs... let alone a basic lift?
That which I held inside that got me through my own struggles--that is what I can try to point you to. In and out of the hospital... coming oh so close to insanity and then somehow pulling myself out of it. Its gratitude to have made it to now... and yet I still cherish all and regret none.
As the Duckey Boys said... "I know i'm not alone, I've got my friends."
4 tattoos, a million different hair cuts glowing in a million differn colors. That feeling that an opening chord can still hit inside you. The sound when the music is silent and all you hear is a small room being filled with lyrics that speak to all these experiences of rage, sadness, and freedom.
So many people... and in the end its all and only about people living. The punk who offered me a place to crash when I got of the train in... was that Denmark? yeah.. Copenhagen. The guys who I hitched a ride with on a weekend trip in flordia following Avail as I bailed on one more school (sorry dad!). So many shows all over the country. So many amazing people... musicians, photographers, hangers on, the CHBC in every town, sleeping on floors, having nothing but music in common and always being able to grow from their. Sitting on a beach in the Philippines talking to this kid because he knew how to play guitar and I knew how to play guitar. Metallica was all we had in common... so I played him Rancid and he played me some unbelievable song in whatever dialect he spoke in. The taste of PBR the morning after. Hangover taco bell runs. Watching the drug dealers and transvestite prostitutes outside your apartment in LA. The laughs the tears. Its locked inside my head connected via neurotransmitters that fire only from certain connections.
Keep finding pictures of times gone by...
Its something that is mine and only mine now. Nobody can ever take any of it from me now. But I feel blessed to still feed energy off the pain, rage, and joy. Now its the small things that remind me. Wrapping my arms around the neck of Ryan who walked me through so much. Random phone calls from Aaron only to find him sitting on your door step in Sacramento. Micheal who helped me find my way to these strange places. The handful of teachers who kept saying yes--to my writings, to my ideas--and kept guiding me towards the few and far between who actually have something to say. The memory of waking up to a voice mail from Tonja on my phone singing Rancid to me... "if I fall back down... your gonna help me back up again. If I fall back down... your gonan be my friend."
And oh coarse some will sigh and say its not the way it used to be. Though I'm not sure what they mean... kids have always been kids...art has been art... dysfunction has always been dysfunction... and market place has always been the market place... trends come and go... money comes and goes. But take a second I tell them. Take a second... look past the herd of blue hair loud obnoxious kids. There that one... in the corner. See the gleam in their eye. That sinister little grin. There... right there. See nothing ever changes.
I no longer have to care... nor pretend to not care.
There's a club on the coast, where the kids get lost, and no one's gonna stare,Yeah, chuck T's and bleached jeans with dayglow mohawk hair,
Yeah, misfits and homeless kids all call their home there,
Don't tell me it ain't real! Don't you fucking dare! --Rancid Spirt of '87
I can tell you what has change from that very first rancid show until now.
Yes, i'm still creative, passionate, and determined to live a life rather than wait and watch.
But somehow I've cut deeper into a core. On my good days (we all fall short on the bad) my atheistic libertarianism and anti-authoritarianism and commitment to science and reason, my christian political socialism, the commitment to interlock and balance these different themes of my core is more steadfast, resilient, and locked into my brain.
In my life I may falter but I no longer silence my voice. I may fall but I always get up. I may question the world, but never my place or my own potential to rise above. I act and usurp the actions and confidence of those who manipulate and exploit those weaker than they are. I stand my ground in the public arena--violence doesn't intimidate, shame cannot hurt me, fear pushes me onwards.
I live my life. I cherish my friends. I get up every morning in gratitude for today. I smile at those I pass. And if I have some food you can have half of it. I got no where to go but be here and I only got right now so I no longer waste it.
And I do my best to work to help others through policy and community building. I believe second chances are great and third chances even better. I truly believe no one is to be left behind, forgotten, or harmed--even and especially by themselves. And I recognize the challenge of proper interpretation, the temptation for superiority and force over discussion, dialogue, and education. Its a slow process... but think how long it too to start the ball rolling in the first place!
All the rest is just debris... tomorrow I keep plugging away at trying to join with others politically to create a better world. A little more efficient, a little more productive... a little less debris in it.
Tomorrow I'll go back to digging into my mind and the minds of other minds who struggle to say something and create something of use... I'll keep training myself--honing my skills--to hopefully say something interesting about all of this--maybe even get paid for it!
But for now... for tonight--loud music, and cherished old songs.
Swing by the Masquerade tonight. Doors open 7pm. Don't know what we'll find... but it doesn't matter... we'll just pick up the pieces tomorrow.
"see ya in the pit"
Thursday, June 19, 2008
John McCain's health care plan
Is McCain's Health Care Market Oriented or Insurance Industry Oriented?
The NYT tells us that Senator McCain's health care plan is market-oriented, but it is hard to see how this is the case. The plan breaks up existing employer insurance pools and would have each individual buy their own insurance.
There are large disparities in health care costs with the sickest 10 percent of patients accounting for almost 90 percent of costs. Insurers make money by not providing insurance to these sick people. When workers are put together in large pools, then insurers have no choice to provide insurance to sick people, however when they contract with each person individually then they have the opportunity to exclude people with health problems.
It is difficult to see how shifting from a system of employer-provided insurance to individual insurance is a market-oriented reform (there is a market now for employer-provided insurance). It is very difficult to see how this change will lead to more efficiency, as claimed by the expert cited in the article, since it will almost certainly lead to more resources being wasted in screening individuals for prior health care conditions and efforts to conceal these conditions by individuals.
The NYT tells us that Senator McCain's health care plan is market-oriented, but it is hard to see how this is the case. The plan breaks up existing employer insurance pools and would have each individual buy their own insurance.
There are large disparities in health care costs with the sickest 10 percent of patients accounting for almost 90 percent of costs. Insurers make money by not providing insurance to these sick people. When workers are put together in large pools, then insurers have no choice to provide insurance to sick people, however when they contract with each person individually then they have the opportunity to exclude people with health problems.
It is difficult to see how shifting from a system of employer-provided insurance to individual insurance is a market-oriented reform (there is a market now for employer-provided insurance). It is very difficult to see how this change will lead to more efficiency, as claimed by the expert cited in the article, since it will almost certainly lead to more resources being wasted in screening individuals for prior health care conditions and efforts to conceal these conditions by individuals.
Dean Baker on Economy
The Post Asks Why We are Gloomy
A front page Washington Post article notes that consumers have the most negative attitudes about the economy in almost three decades, even though measures like the inflation rate and unemployment rate are not very high. After reviewing possible explanations, it concludes that people are now expecting better: "coming off two decades of prosperity and low inflation, Americans have come to treat low unemployment and inflation as givens."
Actually, most of the last two decades have not been especially prosperous. Wages did not keep pace with inflation over most of this period, with the notable exception being the years from 1996 to 2001. While inflation was relatively low, economic theory argues that workers care about their real wage, not the rate of inflation per se. The view that workers are happier with 3 percent inflation and 2 percent wage growth, than 5 percent inflation and 5 percent wage, contradicts widely held economic theory. If the Post wants to argue this position, they should find some research that supports their view or directly lay out the argument for readers.
The most obvious reason that consumers would feel gloomy is that tens of millions of homeowners have just seen most of their life's savings disappear in the housing crash. Real house prices have fallen by almost 25 percent over the last two years, costing the typical homeowner $55,000 over this period. While the Post notes the decline in house prices, it does not view it as a key factor in explaining the public's attitudes.
It is also worth noting that demographics may play a role in public perceptions. When workers are young, they tend to see their pay rise as they get more experience. In other words, a typical 30 year-old earns more than a typical 25-year old. This means that even if wages are going down throughout the economy, most workers may still be seeing rising wages.
However, with the huge baby boom cohort now in the ages between 44 and 62, this age effect has largely disappeared or is even going in the opposite direction. If wages economy-wide are falling, then most workers are probably experiencing this decline directly.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Nietzsche
I had thought a version of this for a long time but yesterday in class it hit me full on. How anyone can read Nietzsche as anything other than a Christian thinker is beyond me. He is and only is a Christian thinker. You can't really make any sesne of him unless you understand that... which must mean pretty much everyone makes no sense of him.
Will have to get more into that soon...
by the by for Fair Tax folks... Nietzsche would oppose it. Arguments that everyone should pay the same taxes accepts the premise that everyone is equal. Its hard to make a claim that everyone is equal... as Nietzsche is so oft to do in his books. So Nietzsche would be in opposition.
I'm reading the boortz/linder book... in small chunks... as we speak.
Will have to get more into that soon...
by the by for Fair Tax folks... Nietzsche would oppose it. Arguments that everyone should pay the same taxes accepts the premise that everyone is equal. Its hard to make a claim that everyone is equal... as Nietzsche is so oft to do in his books. So Nietzsche would be in opposition.
I'm reading the boortz/linder book... in small chunks... as we speak.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
on the fly blogging...
Back from the gym... eating lunch... found this... gotta run to school now...
Ten Reasons to ban gay marriage
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
On the way home yesterday...
So i'm standing on the train reading a journal article. A women gets on with a cain and NOT A SINGLE PERSON GOT UP! I wish I had said something but at the same time didn't want to embarrass them. What the hell!
On my way to the parking lot I stepped on gum. I had to grin to myself... we are what we are... ain't nothing gonna change.
"Its gonna kill me for the rest of my life..."
On my way to the parking lot I stepped on gum. I had to grin to myself... we are what we are... ain't nothing gonna change.
"Its gonna kill me for the rest of my life..."
Heard this TI song on the radio yesterday...
and it blew me away... had to pull it up today to hear it again...
Its a phenomenal song but the line that really did it for me was: "god'll take you through hell just to get you to heaven"
Its a phenomenal song but the line that really did it for me was: "god'll take you through hell just to get you to heaven"
god'll take you through hell just to get you to heaven
so even know its heavy the load i will carry
grin and still bear it
win and still share it
apologies to the fans i hope you can understand it
life can change ya directions
even when you aint planned it
all you can do is handle it
the worst thing you could do is panic
use it to your advantage
avoid insanity manage to conquer
every obstacle
make impossible possible
even when winnings illogical
losing's still far from optional
Somehow I rise above my problems and remain here
Yeah and I hope the picture painted clear
If ya heart filled with faith then ya cant fear
Wonder how I face years and im still chillen
Easy,let go and let god deal wit it
Nietzsche quote
Reading On The Genealogy of Morals for this afternoons class and came across this section 7 of preface...
I had reasons to look about me for scholarly, bold, and industrious comrades (I am still looking).
cutting my political teeth...
Wanted to post this so that i'd never loose the memory. For some reason I was thinking this morning about the Kevin Madden campaign. The day I drove over to Fayeteville to knock on doors. I called Richard Ray--and I can still see it--it was that fall cold/sunny. And I was telling him... "well Richard, I'm lost in Fayeteville looking for voters."
The first, hardest, and most inspireing 517 votes I ever worked for. It was wonderful and I'll never forget it!
The first, hardest, and most inspireing 517 votes I ever worked for. It was wonderful and I'll never forget it!
Monday, June 16, 2008
behaviors Jim needs to do more of...
William Kristol on Tim Russert
Tim showed up one day, looked around, and took a few of us out for a beer. It took me about two minutes of conversation to realize that Tim was far savvier about politics — especially New York Democratic politics — than we at headquarters were, but he was polite and pretended to listen to our observations. In fact, as Tim told me later, he quickly concluded that most of us had no idea what we were doing — which was certainly the case.I tend to shoot my mouth off... need to not do that... listen to people... learn from people. Ask David Pacini has always taught me... "when someone wants to know your opinion they'll ask you." Telling them what you think won't teach them anything... they'll never here you...
5:30 get up... run run run...
I don't think Op Ivy had postive connotations in their song healthy body sick mind... ("working all the time" errr was it "overtime"?)
But any hoo... Had picnic Saturday with about 150 people show up!!! Monday morning... got to run drop off keys to park... got to read about 40 pages in logic homework... got to finish Nietzsche reading and start marx reading... hope to start Nietxsche paper tomorrow...
Don't have time to blog... or read this interesting looking post from Brad Delong....
"Conservatism"
Dad hope you are feeling better... go read one of the stoic philosophers...
"a smile
a breath of fresh air
the laughter of children
yeah we got it good..."
But any hoo... Had picnic Saturday with about 150 people show up!!! Monday morning... got to run drop off keys to park... got to read about 40 pages in logic homework... got to finish Nietzsche reading and start marx reading... hope to start Nietxsche paper tomorrow...
Don't have time to blog... or read this interesting looking post from Brad Delong....
"Conservatism"
I do not believe that conservatism is a political philosophy. Conservatism is the practical principle that the pieces of furniture you have that suit and are comfortable should not be thrown away. And conservatism is a rhetorical mode of justification--effective on those who respect authority. But it isn't a philosophy.Go read more indepth... I want to follow up more on it as well.
Dad hope you are feeling better... go read one of the stoic philosophers...
"a smile
a breath of fresh air
the laughter of children
yeah we got it good..."
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The supreme court decision yesterday
Our founding fathers would be very happy today checks and balances worked the way it was designed. They fought and died to give us protections that the king consistently violated--our country has been blessed with their wisdom. These protections have created a stable nation, a stable economy, able to overcome any challenge facing it with integrety and a refusal to accept the post-modern relativism that says we are not obligated to uphold the same moral values we impose on others. It has given us a strong Republic which we must be good stewards of. As i'm always taught by my mentor--"cooler heads will prevail" and they did today.
Its unfortunate that some feel that even as they ask "why they hate us" we conduct ourselves showing the same disdain for law, order, and basic civil liberties which the fundamentalist have. Since 2003 recruits for Al Queida has sky-rocketed, the middle east has destabilized, Iran has grown in strength, Bin Ladin is still on the loose, Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off than before the war according to experts, and public opinion in the middle east and across the globe has dropped to levels that makes it hard for us to work within these countries to find and stop the terrorist. We will win with free speech, open markets, and strong legal mechanisms that allow neither for kicking down doors in the quiet of the night, nor secret trials without access to legal protections.
At least we can still count on the supreme court. And fortunately the Democratic leadership is working hard to keep in committee the Impeachment effort of Kuncich because they correctly point out that impeachment only divides us and keeps us from addressing the many important issues we need to be facing--such as ranking 37th in the world for health care. The supreme courts ruling today proves this to be true.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." --James Madison
"A republic, if you can keep it." --Benjamin Franklin
Bob Barr the Libertarian Presidential candidate had a great statement on today's supreme court ruling which I wanted to pass on.
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Fundamental Civil Liberties, Says Bob Barr
June 13, 2008 6:11 pm EST
Atlanta, GA -- Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court made two critically important rulings. The first concluded that detainees in Guantanamo Bay could seek habeas corpus relief in federal court. The second stated that an American held by U.S. forces in Iraq was entitled to the protection of habeas corpus.
With these two decisions the Court "has reaffirmed one of the foundations of American liberties, the historic writ of habeas corpus—which requires the authorities to show cause for an arrest," explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. The justices did not order anyone released, instead leaving that decision up to the trial judge after a full and fair hearing.
Barr, who since leaving Congress in January 2003 has become one of the nation's leading advocates for protecting privacy and civil liberties, explained that the decision "is as much a victory for the American people as it is for any particular litigant." The right to habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution: "by allowing a defendant to seek relief in court, habeas corpus is one of the most important legal limits on government," explains Barr.
However, he observes, these decisions, though welcome, "are only the start in a long process of reasserting our liberties." Congress must not, for instance, cave in and allow warrant-less surveillance of American citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). To this end, Barr joined with the ACLU, Liberty Coalition, American Library Association, Citizen Outreach, and other organizations to oppose a proposal by Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) to limit judicial review and gut other proposed safeguards against government abuse.
The threat is bipartisan, warns Barr. "The Bush administration has spent seven years attempting to give the executive branch unprecedented powers without any accountability, while the Democrats have refused to use their authority to hold the president and his appointees accountable," Barr explains. And after pretending to be a Republican maverick, "Sen. McCain's staff says he would spy on Americans without warrants just as President Bush has done."
"We must give the U.S. government the tools necessary to defeat terrorism, but in doing so we must not sacrifice the freedoms that make America great," says Barr. Today's Supreme Court rulings are a good beginning. Now, he emphasizes, "It is up to the rest of us to finish the job of restoring America's constitutional liberties."
Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.
Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens' right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.
Its unfortunate that some feel that even as they ask "why they hate us" we conduct ourselves showing the same disdain for law, order, and basic civil liberties which the fundamentalist have. Since 2003 recruits for Al Queida has sky-rocketed, the middle east has destabilized, Iran has grown in strength, Bin Ladin is still on the loose, Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off than before the war according to experts, and public opinion in the middle east and across the globe has dropped to levels that makes it hard for us to work within these countries to find and stop the terrorist. We will win with free speech, open markets, and strong legal mechanisms that allow neither for kicking down doors in the quiet of the night, nor secret trials without access to legal protections.
At least we can still count on the supreme court. And fortunately the Democratic leadership is working hard to keep in committee the Impeachment effort of Kuncich because they correctly point out that impeachment only divides us and keeps us from addressing the many important issues we need to be facing--such as ranking 37th in the world for health care. The supreme courts ruling today proves this to be true.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." --James Madison
"A republic, if you can keep it." --Benjamin Franklin
Friday, June 13, 2008
Please consider supporting my efforts to go to netroots nation
Even to my conservative readers I hope you consider a vote for me to gain a scholarship to the Net Roots Nation event coming up this July. Economist Paul Krugman and other bloggers will be speaking. Consider it a 28th birthday present (July 13th baby!)
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/124-jim-nichols
Help me grow as a progressive activist who advocates for issues that matter not political politics.
As someone who has been blogging since 2002 and politically active in the social justice movement since 2001 I would learn a ton and would walk away a better advocate at focusing on policy not people on my blog and in my political efforts. We all fall short from time to time of this goal; but its a goal that many bloggers and activists are turning to in their roles as leaders.
regards,
Jim
Jim
p.s. please contact friends and family to help my efforts!
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/124-jim-nichols
Help me grow as a progressive activist who advocates for issues that matter not political politics.
As someone who has been blogging since 2002 and politically active in the social justice movement since 2001 I would learn a ton and would walk away a better advocate at focusing on policy not people on my blog and in my political efforts. We all fall short from time to time of this goal; but its a goal that many bloggers and activists are turning to in their roles as leaders.
regards,
Jim
Jim
p.s. please contact friends and family to help my efforts!
Phones been ringing off the hook today
Tomorrows picnic www.henrydems.org looks to be a success already.
volunteers have made over 500 phone calls
in newspaper
8 candidates from US Senate to county sheriff will be attending!
volunteers have made over 500 phone calls
in newspaper
8 candidates from US Senate to county sheriff will be attending!
Tom Waits - You Can Never Hold Back Spring
Tom Waits is my hero... thats why he's tied up in my closet and I only take him out to practice, record, exercise, and eat. He needs to live as long as eternity... the beatuy he brings to world is as long as eternity, the human experience, and that lonely place in our hearts.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
McCain File
"One File, One Resource, to explain One vote this November." [will be updating until November. Please help me improve this file and/or challenge the accuracy of file info. Email me at Jim.Nichols@gmail.com]
Economics
McCain emphasizes Job Creation --Just like Bush?
Mavrick no more
unreliable at best.
Health Care
Is McCain's Health Care Market Oriented or Insurance Industry Oriented?
McCain's Swiftboat redux
Economics
McCain emphasizes Job Creation --Just like Bush?
Senator McCain's economic proposals center on maintaining the tax cuts put in place under the Bush administration. The economy has sustained the slowest pace of job creation on record during the Bush years, creating jobs at annual rate of just over 700,000 a year (0.5 percent). By contrast, it created jobs at almost a 3 million annual rate during the Clinton years.
It would be wrong to attribute the entire falloff in the pace of job creation between the Clinton and Bush administrations to President Bush's tax cuts, but it would be difficult to argue that an economic policy that centers on maintaining these tax cuts has a "emphasis on job creation"
Mavrick no more
unreliable at best.
A cautious foreign policy realist in the 1980s, he emerged as a leading neoconservative in the '90s. Voting analyses placed him as relatively moderate in 2001 and '02, when he was enraged at the Republican Party that had rejected him, but saw him snap back to relative down-the-line conservatism after 2004, when he began seeking the presidential nomination.
Health Care
Is McCain's Health Care Market Oriented or Insurance Industry Oriented?
The NYT tells us that Senator McCain's health care plan is market-oriented, but it is hard to see how this is the case. The plan breaks up existing employer insurance pools and would have each individual buy their own insurance.
There are large disparities in health care costs with the sickest 10 percent of patients accounting for almost 90 percent of costs. Insurers make money by not providing insurance to these sick people. When workers are put together in large pools, then insurers have no choice to provide insurance to sick people, however when they contract with each person individually then they have the opportunity to exclude people with health problems.
It is difficult to see how shifting from a system of employer-provided insurance to individual insurance is a market-oriented reform (there is a market now for employer-provided insurance). It is very difficult to see how this change will lead to more efficiency, as claimed by the expert cited in the article, since it will almost certainly lead to more resources being wasted in screening individuals for prior health care conditions and efforts to conceal these conditions by individuals.
McCain's Swiftboat redux
Listen to Republican Chuck Hegal mid-way who was dead on in regards to how innappropriate John McCain's recent attack on Obama.
Here is the real story via MSNBC
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop.
Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press.
Imagine if McCain hadn't voted against the New GI Bill? Instead he stated that he was against it because it created incentives for soldiers to leave after one tour.
He could have said thank you for one tour of service! Which is above and beyond in its honor and valor. He decided the paying for college for young men and women was too much to ask of tax payers. Some of us believe one tour of duty earns them a good education and quality health care. Imagine if John McCain did as well...
Imagine if McCain was not still supporting a failed Iraq policy that was underfunded, poorly planned, and has only created a larger terrorist threat?
What if he took the postion held by most forigen policy experts that the past 8 years of go it alone has harmed our national security, weakend our security across the globe, and left our troops to fight--with no sacrifice called for from the citizens at home.
Taxcuts in a time of war is unprecedented... that is John McCain... that is what he should be talking about. But when you are on the wrong side of issues it always good to throw mud...
Thats why he's attacking Obama...
Why oh why am I the way I am...
At GA State waiting for student id office to open up. Its about 8:15am. Someone walks up and says to me... "is this where I am supposed to be to get my ID card." I respond, "well technically no. But if you wait about 15 minutes it will be."
As Douglas Adams once wrote: "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
As Douglas Adams once wrote: "We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."
Monday, June 9, 2008
Infrastructure...
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INFRASTRUCTURE.
Via Matt, Rob Goodspeed has an interesting post on the political problems of infrastructure investment: Namely, that the payoff comes 50 years into the future, and so politicians worried about the next election systematically shortchange it. Goodspeed points to some clever potential fixes. One idea is to create an independent public commission to plan national transportation and make funding recommendations to Congress, which would be subject to a 2/3rd veto. Another option is to take infrastructure "off budget," or at least evaluate its impacts over a longer time horizon. A third idea, which Obama has expressed interest in, is to create a national infrastructure bank, modeled off the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
But it's not totally clear why infrastructure gets shortchanged. Some of infrastructure's benefits don't manifest for decades, but the construction does create jobs, and if a politician is able to brag about bringing a new highway or train systems, that's generally good enough. Infrastructure, after all, often takes the form of pork, and tends to pass easily. And certain types of infrastructure have few problems in the political system. Highways are well-funded. Transit systems less so. In other words, the problem doesn't seem to be in the amount we spend but the way we plan. That suggests that taking it off budget might be helpful, but more for smaller fixes without political constituencies (bridge repair) then big new projects aimed at changing transportation patterns. An independent commission might do more, but if you could get that commission and staff it with good people, you'd probably already have the political will to pass your infrastructure priorities through the normal process. Which brings us back to the original problem: Convincing existing political leaders, and the next president, to make smarter infrastructure development a priority. The problem with all these plans is that they can only really happen after you fulfill that base condition. But that base condition is what we currently don't have.
headed to class...
First day of class for the summer session part deux. On my way to my first philosophy class in a long time.
Like every first day of class since Kindergarden I'm a dork dressed up in my nice cloths.
Guess its that whole first impression thing. That and taking your mind seriously by showing an emphasis on professionalism. Okay so its summer... its hot... and soon i'm supposed to be unloading trucks for UPS at "foo" in the morning [4am]. So I'll soon lean on shorts, sandals, and t-shirts like my other youthful cohorts.
Like every first day of class since Kindergarden I'm a dork dressed up in my nice cloths.
Guess its that whole first impression thing. That and taking your mind seriously by showing an emphasis on professionalism. Okay so its summer... its hot... and soon i'm supposed to be unloading trucks for UPS at "foo" in the morning [4am]. So I'll soon lean on shorts, sandals, and t-shirts like my other youthful cohorts.
Still on my fair tax background homework...
If you haven't kept up I'm in a healthy debate on the Fair Tax in the comments section. Its giving me a chance to learn more about it and speak better to my views as they adapt to what i'm finding out... there are many different sales tax plans but there are similarities and i'm sure there are some readers who might be able to articulate them better than I can. But I'm posting this as well... to save others time if they care to venture into these area of economics.
Like I always say... do your homework... challenge presumptions, data, and findings of others--empower yourself to speak on issues that impact you life.
Anyhoo... here is something else to churn in the gears o'my brain.
Tax Follies At TNR
Like I always say... do your homework... challenge presumptions, data, and findings of others--empower yourself to speak on issues that impact you life.
Anyhoo... here is something else to churn in the gears o'my brain.
Tax Follies At TNR
Robert S. McIntyre | September 18, 2005
You have to wonder. Half to three-quarters of the American public doesn't believe in evolution (depending on how you define it). One out of three Americans thinks the budget deficit can be eliminated (a) by hoping (or praying) that it goes away (8 percent) or (b) by cutting taxes even more (25 percent). Anti-scientific, un-arithmetic thinking seems to be rampant. But has The New Republic gone over to the dark side, too?
In August, a TNR cover story promoted the wacky idea that we should scrap all of the federal government's progressive taxes in favor of a national sales tax. Such an enormous shift in the tax burden away from the rich and onto the poor and the middle class is the linchpin of what authors Larry Kotlikoff and Niall Ferguson call their "holistic" approach to "Social Security reform, health-care reform, and tax reform." Their spending proposals -- which include a pernicious restructuring of Social Security benefits in favor of high earners and a goofy system of personalized health-insurance vouchers -- are hugely defective. But these half-baked schemes are mere window dressing for what they care about most: their radically unfair tax plan.
Boston University economist Kotlikoff is a longtime sales-tax advocate whose work includes a 1993 article on the topic for the libertarian Cato Institute. Scottish-born Ferguson currently teaches history at Harvard University and is a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. Despite their pedigrees, they do get one thing right: Our country needs much higher taxes to pay for public services.
Indeed, the authors imply that they want to boost federal revenues by almost half. That's quite ambitious (although given their health-insurance plan, it may not be enough). But the way they would achieve this massive tax increase is abominable.
"The federal fiscal system should be moderately progressive," they state as their first principle. By which they mean far less progressive that it is now.
To counter the well-known fact that sales taxes are inherently regressive, Kotlikoff and Ferguson brag that their proposed national sales tax would offer a universal rebate, designed to exempt everyone on their spending up to the poverty line. They fail to mention, however, that our current income tax doesn't tax families with children until they make more than twice the poverty level. So even with the rebates, replacing current federal taxes with a sales tax would add thousands of dollars a year to the taxes of all but the richest Americans. Those at the very top, on the other hand, would get hundreds of thousands of dollars each in annual tax cuts.
Beyond failing the test of fairness, the authors' fiscal arithmetic doesn't add up, either. They claim that at a 33-percent rate, their sales tax would produce revenues equal to 21 percent of the economy. (The existing federal taxes that they implicitly retain, including excise taxes, customs duties, and most of the worker side of the payroll tax, would bring their promised total up to 25 percent of the economy -- versus only 17 percent now.) This, they say, would be enough to replace personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, estate taxes, and the employer side of the payroll tax, plus leave enough to pay for universal health insurance.
But that's a pipe dream. To collect 21 percent of the economy in sales taxes would require a tax rate of about 60 percent -- assuming almost perfect compliance and a preposterously broad tax base that would include, for example, housing, education, and religious services. (Taxing health care wouldn't produce any net revenue because the federal government would be paying for it.)
In addition, state and local sales taxes probably would have to be double what they are now, as few if any states could run their corporate and personal income taxes without the federal government's help. So the total sales-tax rate would have to be close to 75 percent.
At which point, of course, cheating and tax avoidance would be rampant, as would lobbying for sales-tax exemptions. It's odd, for example, that Kotlikoff and Ferguson think it's plausible that the public would tolerate an extremely high-rate sales tax on home purchases when our current income tax actually subsidizes mortgage payments.
Kotlikoff and Ferguson maintain that their "new New Deal represents the best chance of the Democrats getting back into power." It's hard to believe that they really favor that goal. But even if they do, given how badly the national-sales-tax idea played for Republicans in the 2004 elections, their political advice is worse than their economics.
As for TNR, let's hope publishing this awful piece was only a momentary lapse.
Robert S. McIntyre is the director of Citizens for Tax Justice.
blog comment on free market grandstanding....
I made here
I next to never see a "capitalist" support the free market.Go read the post... the blogger has some good points in his post...
They love their patent protections that keep the costs high for consumers. They love restrictions on the free flow of labor--which would for example help bring the cost of going to your local doctor down if we let foriegn doctors in the country since they'd be willing to work for a cheaper wage.
Take John McCain who claims "a free market" approach. Thats nonsense. He just wants a market approach that is full of protectionisms and subsidies that protect certain people in the market. It has nothing to do with "free market" theory. He either doesn't know much about the theory or doesn't mind using propagandha to buy votes on the cheap.
More market sure... but less "free market" grandstanding from those who really don't want a free market at all.
fair tax quaddux(?)
Huckabee’s Tax Plan Appeals, but Is It Fair?
By TOM REDBURN
By TOM REDBURN
Long before Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, began campaigning for president, advocates for replacing the entire federal tax system with a national sales tax were campaigning to convert him to their cause.
They succeeded. “Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly,” Mr. Huckabee says on his Web site. “But I am running to eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all — personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment.”
“Instead,” adds Mr. Huckabee, who demonstrated his appeal to voters with his victory on Thursday in the Iowa caucuses, “we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth.”
Under the plan, Americans would pay only one federal tax, which would be applied to just about everything they buy: not just the goods people buy at stores on which most states assess a sales tax, but nearly all services, including health care and insurance, the purchase of a new home or rental of an apartment, even things like a teenager mowing a lawn or baby-sitting for a neighbor.
But the FairTax, as its many fervent backers call it, is not as simple as its supporters describe. And, to most tax experts who have looked at the proposal, it is anything but fair. For one, its burden would fall disproportionately on middle-income people.
Still, the plan has undeniable appeal. “There is a yearning across the political system to make the tax system better,” said William G. Gale, a critic of the proposal who is a leading tax economist at the Brookings Institution, the liberal-leaning research organization in Washington. “Right now the only people talking about tax reform are the sales tax advocates.”
Supporters, including a handful of tax experts like Laurence J. Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, contend that a rate of about 23 percent, applied across the board, would bring in just as much money to the Treasury as all the taxes the federal government now collects.
It is not the same as a normal sales tax, however. Under the proposal, the tax is included first. That means a $100 item would cost $130, or 30 percent more. The plan’s supporters say that works out as a 23 percent rate because $30 is 23 percent of $130. Americans would no longer face federal withholding from their paychecks. But most analysts say the tax rate necessary to replace current federal revenues, under any likely plan, would actually need to be much higher. By some estimates it could add 40 percent, if not more, to the cost of living.
Whatever the rate, critics say, a steep federal retail tax, piled on top of existing state sales taxes, would encourage widespread illegal tax evasion, black market transactions and other forms of cheating, creating a cycle that would require even higher tax rates.
“The main weakness of the FairTax is its comprehensiveness,” said Dale W. Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard who opposes the plan but whose research into problems with the current system is sometimes cited by supporters. “It tries to roll everything into one tax, which simply can’t carry all that weight.”
Mr. Huckabee, according to polls, won the Iowa caucuses largely on the strength of his appeal to evangelical voters and voters’ desire for change. But his campaign received much of its early backing from FairTax advocates who flocked to his banner and continue to fill seats at campaign rallies and provide financial support.
In May, at a rally in Columbia, S.C., about 10,000 supporters of the proposal turned out to hear Mr. Huckabee declare, “I realize that the FairTax organization does not endorse candidates, but let me be very clear: I endorse you.”
Supporters of the sales tax plan are particularly drawn to the feature that calls for repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service. That fits with the insurgent, populist-tinged nature of Mr. Huckabee’s campaign.
“The public desperately desires a better way to collect federal taxes for the common good and recognizes the current system as both inherently flawed and then further corrupted by inside-the-Beltway machinations,” Leo E. Linbeck Jr., the multimillionaire founder of Americans for Fair Taxation, wrote in a recent letter defending the decade-old proposal. “It is understood by those who are joining our effort that overcoming the self-interest of the increasingly disdained Congress and the army of income tax system defenders is no small task.”
For Mr. Huckabee, the sales tax plan also helps provide political cover against attacks from antitax Republicans, who suspect, based on his actions as governor, that he might be tempted to raise taxes in the White House.
“It would certainly help limit runaway government spending,” Mr. Kotlikoff said. “Everybody would understand that there is a single tax: the government spends more, everybody’s tax rate will go up.”
Like any tax on consumption, the biggest burden, comparatively, would fall on the poor. To help compensate for this, the plan would provide a monthly check from the government to every American household, rich and poor alike.
The rebate amount would be set to equal what a household living at the poverty level would pay in taxes, leaving some of the poor better off and cushioning the proposal’s impact on the middle class.
But, apart from the administrative nightmares associated with giving every household a rebate, it would still not prevent transferring a substantial part of the current tax burden from those with annual incomes above $200,000, who tend to save a large part of their income rather than spending it, to those earning less.
“Even with the rebate counted the way FairTax supporters want it calculated,” said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative tax analyst and policy maker in the Reagan administration who has emerged as one of the proposal’s most powerful critics, “there would be an enormous shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to those with lower and middle incomes.”
Advocates for the proposal look at the distribution of taxes differently. Mr. Kotlikoff argues that over a lifetime most people spend just about everything they earn from their work and investments, so that those who avoid taxes on their savings now would end up paying later when they consume their wealth.
“The FairTax, looked at correctly, is actually pretty progressive,” contends Mr. Kotlikoff, who has been paid by the FairTax organization for his research. “Liberals should love it: it lowers taxes on wages and imposes a tax on wealth.”
Like many single-issue causes of the past, including the “Cross of Gold” campaign of William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the 20th century and the Depression-era “Every Man a King” plan of Huey Long to redistribute wealth, supporters make plenty of grandiose claims for the sales tax plan.
Advocates say that businesses, no longer required to pay taxes themselves, would pass on their savings to consumers through lower prices. The plan would also eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars to comply with the income tax, provide a huge jolt to economic growth and give American companies a competitive advantage against foreign producers.
But even though critics acknowledge that there would be some economic benefits from introducing a broad-based consumption tax, Mr. Gale of the Brookings Institution said that the proposal itself was “fundamentally a ruse.”
“The notion that there is a 23 percent rate that solves all our problems,” he said, “is politically unrealistic and mathematically impossible.”
Marginal Revolution on Fair Tax
Huckabee's "Fair Tax"
Tom Redburn nails it:
Whatever the rate, critics say, a steep federal retail tax, piled on top of existing state sales taxes, would encourage widespread illegal tax evasion, black market transactions and other forms of cheating, creating a cycle that would require even higher tax rates.
“The main weakness of the FairTax is its comprehensiveness,” said Dale W. Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard who opposes the plan but whose research into problems with the current system is sometimes cited by supporters. “It tries to roll everything into one tax, which simply can’t carry all that weight.”
Here is Bruce Bartlett, here is Megan McArdle on same. You can put this in the "things I am nearly certain about category."
Response to comments: Note that a "fair tax," or a national sales tax, isn't the same thing as a standard multi-stage VAT (a better idea); for a standard VAT the dual reporting requirements make it self-enforcing to a much higher degree.
Fair Tax redux...
Is the Fair Tax really fair?
How much must pretax prices go down before you're comfortable paying an additional 30% on your home purchase, kid's tuition and doctor appointments? Increasing the cost of buying a home by 30% would not stimulate the housing market. On a house currently selling for $200,000, a 30% tax means you have to borrow $60,000 more just to get in the door. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Arguments that the Fair Tax would eliminate the underground economy are less than persuasive. Add a 30% federal hit to a 6% state sales tax, and you have created a golden opportunity for smuggling. Look at what happened to cigarettes when states increased their prices with higher sales taxes. They're now marketed out of the trunks of cars. Those cheating on their income taxes would cheat on their sales taxes. Just substitute the term "black market" for underground economy.
The idea that the Fair Tax would eliminate complexity in the tax code also fails to recognize reality. Special interests would almost certainly hire lobbyists to propose exemptions for such things as home purchases, medical services and education. I spent some time in Washington, D.C., and I never met a lawmaker who wanted to run for re-election on the platform of hitting housing, medical services and education with a 30% tax.
The poor would get little from the Fair Tax because they really don't pay income taxes under our current system. For 2008, if you're married with one child under 17, you have no tax on your first $31,400 in income. The Fair Tax can't beat a zero tax liability. Any real savings would come from the elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Bush administration economists have projected that the Fair Tax would actually increase taxes for those making more than $30,000 and less than $200,000. That's because a flat 30% rate on their gross consumption would suck more dollars than a graduated rate on taxable income, after deductions, exemptions and the like. Taxpayers in that range would lose the benefit of the 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rates on their taxable income.
Transition rules -- the rules that would apply as one shuttered income taxes and started up the Fair Tax -- would cause chaos. Consider your Roth IRA account. You've already paid income taxes on those dollars. You wouldn't be happy when you spent the money and had to pay a tax again.
Somebody would have to enforce the sales tax law or it would have no teeth. So, in practical effect, the plan would not eliminate the IRS. The plan would just convert its function from income-tax compliance to sales-tax compliance. Some agency would have to step in.
Would the national sales tax be enough to raise as much revenue as our current system? Yes, if the rate was high enough, no if it wasn't. I'd bet everything I have that the rate wouldn't remain fixed.
The biggest losers: Municipal bond holders
A subgroup of the wealthy -- those who escape income tax under the current system by investing in federal-tax-free municipal bonds -- would be big losers here. Under the Fair Tax, current tax-free dollars would be hit when they were spent. That would decrease the attractiveness of such investments and potentially increase their cost.
Higher interest rates for state and local projects would result in increased costs for schools, bridges and jails that are normally financed with tax-exempt bonds. Or it might mean higher state and local income and real-estate taxes to cover those costs.
Home values -- and people who work in the real-estate industry -- would suffer. So would those who sell high-priced goods. Cars, appliances and high-ticket items like, say, Tiffany jewelry, could immediately become 30% more expensive. Would the corporate income and payroll tax savings be enough to offset this addition cost? It's arguable, and economists disagree. Personally, I have my doubts.
My biggest fear is the inability of Congress, no matter which party is in control, to control spending.
We raise more tax money today than ever before in our history. The problem is that we increase spending faster than we increase tax revenues. We may end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. Wouldn't that be a kick in your wallet?
Fair Tax homework...
I'm doing some background leg work to my Fair Tax homework... will be posting them as I come to them...
There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax
There is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax
The Lies of the FairTax
In addition to the unsubstantiated claims that Boortz makes for the FairTax, there are three ridiculous lies of the FairTax Plan.
Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax. In his discussion of the origins of the FairTax, Boortz says that the AFFT sought "a method of taxation that would be totally voluntary, that would allow all citizens to pay what they choose, when they choose, by how they choose to spend their money." Boortz has the audacity to say that "there is nothing coercive about the FairTax." It is "a truly voluntary tax system." The government should allow you to "keep your money in an investment account of some kind, earning interest for you, until you decide to pay taxes to the federal government." The FairTax would allow people to "judge for themselves when and how they're comfortable making taxable purchases."
Well, if the FairTax system is voluntary, and allows everyone to pay what they choose and when they choose, what happens if someone decides that they don't want to pay any taxes to the federal government? The same thing that happens now: fines and imprisonment. The FairTax is not a voluntary tax at all. The whole idea is a contradiction in terms. Boortz's statement about people keeping their money until "they're comfortable making taxable purchases" is ludicrous. There is no way to avoid buying new items. One can buy a used car, a used house, and used clothes, but one cannot purchase used food. One could argue that our present tax system is also voluntary: Don't earn any income and you won't have to pay any income taxes.
Lie #2:the FairTax rate would be 23 percent. Throughout the book, Boortz gives the FairTax rate as 23 percent. It is not until near the end of the book—in the chapter, "Questions and Objections"—that he admits it is really 30 percent. But even then he still insists it is 23 percent.
Those of us who were skeptical from the beginning noticed this when we got to page 84. There Boortz used the example of a single mother with two children spending $45 a week on groceries. He claims that the removal of the taxes currently embedded in the price would lower the cost of the groceries to $35.10 (a dubious proposition). But then he says: "Add the FairTax, and the groceries would cost $45.58. I learned in the sixth grade that if an item cost $35.10, and I add to it $10.48 in sales tax, then I paid a tax rate of almost 30 percent—not 23 percent. Boortz says in the "Questions and Objections" chapter that "critics of the FairTax have a way of dwelling on this 30 percent figure." I wonder why? Although Boortz explains that he is using an exclusive rate rather than an inclusive rate to figure the percentage, his "mathematical equivalent of a game of semantics" still results in a FairTax rate of 30 percent. This is why Boortz prefers the national sales tax to be included in the price of each item—so the consumer doesn't realize that he is really paying an extra 30 percent in sales tax, not Boortz's new math amount of 23 percent.
Lie #3: the FairTax would abolish the IRS. Boortz claims that his book is about transforming the nation by sending "one of its most hated institutions," the IRS, to "that place in the government guano heap of history." The goal of the FairTax is to "eliminate the IRS." Boortz even jokes about IRS agents working at a fast food restaurant after the FairTax is implemented.
Calling the IRS by another name doesn't mean that its functions will be eliminated. Just as the income tax will be replaced by the FairTax, so the IRS will be replaced by some other federal bureaucracy to oversee the collection of the FairTax. It should not be forgotten that the FairTax is a national sales tax. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:
There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.
The Fair Tax Act also sets up a "Problem Resolution Office" and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will even still be tax courts. Boortz himself also states: "We envision a department of the Treasury to deal with Internet and catalog sales, with stiff penalties for those selling into our communities who do not abide by the law." The FairTax will abolish the IRS in the same way that it will abolish the income tax—by replacing it with something else.
The Problems of the FairTax
Besides the fact that it doesn't lower the amount of taxes seized from the taxpayers by the federal government and is based on unsubstantiated claims and ridiculous lies, the FairTax is fraught with other problems. In his Introduction, Boortz says that this book will explain the FairTax in detail. He will walk us "through the plan step by step, detailing both the good and the bad." Since Boortz never gets to the bad, I here present seventeen problems with the FairTax.
Problem #1:The FairTax hides the amount of sales tax being paid. Boortz explains how "the FairTax was designed as what's called an 'inclusive' tax—that is, the tax is included in the list price of the product." He reasons that "since our current income taxes are figured on an inclusive basis—that is, they are taken out of our paychecks, not added to them—it was decided to handle the sales tax in exactly the same manner." How could someone write a whole chapter on the evils of the withholding tax and then turn around and recommend a hidden tax like the FairTax? Boortz even has the audacity to claim that with the FairTax the "consumer is completely aware of what he is paying." Really? Suppose the FairTax is implemented next year. Go stand in front of a store and ask the typical American how much federal sales tax he paid on the item he just bought for $139? Give him a calculator and ask him again. Unless he is familiar with figuring percentages, the average American will not be able to tell you how much sales tax he just paid.
Problem #2:The FairTax is progressive. Boortz correctly identifies a progressive income tax with Karl Marx. Yet, because of the prebate, the FairTax sets up a progressive tax system like we have now. Millions of Americans will pay no taxes at all. Others will have some of their taxes offset by the prebate. "The rich" will still be paying the majority of the taxes—something Boortz says he considers "class warfare."
Problem #3: The FairTax is an income redistribution scheme. Boortz calls the Earned Income Tax Credit "a prime conduit for income redistribution from high-income earners to the poor and middle class." Why, then, would he promote a FairTax Plan with a prebate that in essence allows the majority of citizens to not only pay no taxes, but in many cases gives them money over and above that which they paid in sales tax? What's fair about making "the rich" subsidize the poor and the middle class? Boortz calls Social Security an "income redistribution and welfare program." But under the FairTax Plan, Social Security is even worse. At least now it is funded by payroll tax contributions that are independent of deductions for federal income tax. Thanks to the prebate, many people will receive a free retirement program via Social Security who never contributed a dime towards their retirement, or as Boortz says: "All benefit and no burden."
Problem #4:The FairTax creates new tax collectors. From doctors and lawyers to garbage collectors and tree trimmers—multitudes of individuals and businesses that never collected taxes before will be turned into tax collectors for the federal government. Will a teenage babysitter be required to collect the FairTax from her neighbors?
Problem #5:The FairTax creates new taxes. All Internet purchases will be subject to the national sales tax. So will heart surgeries, kidney transplants, and appendectomies—plus the drugs prescribed by the doctors doing the procedures. Want to attend a baseball, football, or basketball game? Better save up a little extra to take care of the FairTax that will be imposed on your tickets.
Problem #6: The FairTax creates new taxpayers. If there are no exceptions and no exemptions then churches and other non-profits will be forced to pay a national sales tax on every purchase. The FairTax will basically do away with not-for-profit entities. The FairTax would also count as taxable the purchases made by federal, state, and local governments. This means the government will be using taxpayer money to pay taxes to itself.
Problem #7: The FairTax makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes. All Congress has to do is slightly increase the initial 23 percent rate. A penny here, a penny there; a quarter of a cent now, a half of a cent later. Just a little at a time, of course. It might be to compensate for inflation, to give seniors a cost of living raise, or to pay for some manufactured crisis like bird flu . Since the federal budget goes up every year, and the FairTax is supposed to be "revenue neutral," the FairTax rate will have to go up right along with the federal budget. You can count on an increase every year, for if government budgets are not under control now, why should we expect Congress to magically become fiscally responsible just because the FairTax is adopted?
Furthermore, since Social Security and Medicare would be funded out of general revenues the FairTax rate would also have to go up to fund the ever-increasing cost of these programs. Then there are the escalating costs of the new prescription drug plan. And if the amount of the prebate "is updated every year to keep up with inflation," the FairTax rate will have to be raised in like manner. How can Boortz recognize that "there is absolutely no limit to the government's desire for your money" and then express hope that the FairTax rate "will go down in the future" if "Congress can keep government spending down"?
Problem #8: The FairTax makes it easier for state governments to raise taxes. In the name of simplicity and efficiency, the states would be inclined to follow the lead of the federal government. States that currently have no sales tax could add one. States that have exemptions on certain items could get rid of the exemptions so as to match the federal government. States that have no sales tax on services could begin taxing services like the federal FairTax Plan would do.
Problem #9: The FairTax has unknown and potentially huge transition costs. Boortz asks a good question: "How will the switch to the FairTax be made?" But then he gives a very naïve answer: "Cold turkey!" He explains that "on January 1, we'll begin to get our gross pay with no deductions." Boortz gives one "transition rule": The value of any inventory on hand December 31 can be used as a credit against collecting taxes in the next year." This should get accountants to work figuring out how to value each company's inventory the highest. Will it be specific identification, average cost, FIFO, or LIFO? But what if a company's fiscal year does not end on December 31? This will cause massive accounting problems. And especially for the federal government since the government's fiscal year begins on October 1.
Problem #10:The FairTax makes certain exceptions while supposedly having none. After saying that there are "no exclusions or exemptions" under the FairTax, Boortz specifically mentions exemptions for Internet access services and tuition. Therefore, his complaint that "exempting certain items—such as food and prescription drugs—would again open the door to an entire battalion of lobbyists to argue that the portion of the industry that they represent is clearly an essential product" is unjustified for he has already opened the door to that very thing.
Problem #11: The FairTax has great potential for fraud. Boortz envisions the prebate amount being issued to a card "like your bank debit card." Since every head of household would have one of these cards, there would be a great chance of criminals preying on people for their cards. There is also the possibility of counterfeiting, resulting in massive theft from the taxpayers. And since the FairTax only applies to new items, there will also be a tremendous incentive for new items to be reclassified as used or previously owned. Businesses could offer a slight increase in the price of a reclassified item in exchange for not having to charge customers the 23 percent national sales tax that would be due if the item was considered new. Enforcement of the "proper" classification of items would require an army of federal bureaucrats that would rival the IRS.
Problem #12:The FairTax has the potential to turn thousands of law-abiding Americans into criminals. Since the FairTax contains no exemption for even the smallest business, anyone who does not collect the FairTax on any good he produces or services he provides is breaking the law. Mow a yard—collect the tax. Babysit—collect the tax. Repair a car—collect the tax. If you don't collect the FairTax then you are a criminal. Once again, the FairTax would have a terrible enforcement problem.
Problem #13: The FairTax does not repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. When FairTax advocates discuss their plan, they talk as though the FairTax would result in the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that gave us the income tax. To his credit, Boortz doesn't make that mistake, but when many people read about "saying goodbye to the income tax," that is what they think. The FairTax bill now pending in Congress ( H.R. 25 in the House and the identical S. 25 in the Senate), repeals Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that relates to income taxes and self-employment taxes and Subtitle C that relates to payroll taxes and the withholding of income taxes.
The only mention of the Sixteenth Amendment in H.R. 25 is when it reports: "Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed." But to repeal Sixteenth Amendment would require a constitutional amendment. Are we to believe that Congress would vote to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment after the passage of the FairTax? And even if Congress did so it would still have to be sent to the states for approval by three-fourths of them.
So, barring the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, what is there to prevent an income tax from being imposed again after a national sales tax has been enacted? And what is to prevent any of the other taxes replaced by the FairTax being re-imposed due to some unanticipated budget shortfall or "crisis"?
Is Boortz that naïve to think that Congress will be satisfied with just the FairTax? And even if the Sixteenth Amendment was repealed after the imposition of the FairTax, any previous tax not on income could be brought back. Can Congress be trusted to do anything else? I can easily envision Congress proposing to lower the rate of the national sales tax in exchange for the addition of a supplemental Social Security tax because we need more money to fund Social Security. Then, a few years later, the national sales tax rate would be right back up to where it was before the "exchange."
Problem #14: The FairTax does not eliminate all federal taxes. Although it is implied throughout the book that the FairTax will be a replacement for the various federal taxes, there are some federal taxes that will still be with us under the FairTax. Even Boortz slips up one time and says that the FairTax would "replace virtually all personal and corporate taxes." Two examples of federal taxes that will still be with us under the FairTax are the excise tax on gasoline and the various taxes that one pays when purchasing an airline ticket. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax, which adds 18.4 cents to the price of a gallon of gas. So under the FairTax, we would have added to each gallon of gas federal excise tax, state excise tax, and federal sales tax. This is just the minimum. The states could also begin applying their sales tax to gasoline. A recent airline ticket I purchased had added to its price a federal excise tax of $15.28, a federal segment tax of $12.80, and a September 11th security fee of $10.00. And what about federal taxes on tobacco and alcohol? The FairTax will merely replace one visible tax with another while leaving intact the invisible ones.
Problem #15: The FairTax is not at all about lowering the amount of taxes the government collects. Boortz terms the FairTax a "tax reform measure, not a government reform measure." It "changes the way revenues are raised for the legitimate operations of the federal government." But if the FairTax raises the same amount of revenue to fund the same federal programs, then what does Boortz think the federal government does that is illegitimate? Is there anything he considers to be illegitimate? If so, then why would he expend so much energy on changing the way the federal government collects taxes instead of changing the amount that the federal government collects in taxes? The fundamental problem is clearly taxation, not the tax code. What is wrong with the federal government's tax code is not that it is too complex, but that it makes possible the almost $3 trillion a year that the federal government spends. As the French laissez-faire economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) once said: "The best tax is always the lightest." Or, as our modern-day Say in Congress, Ron Paul (R-TX), says: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."
Problem #16: The FairTax doesn't even begin to address the root of the problem. Boortz does refer to Frank Chodorov (1887–1966), reminding us that he "once observed that, by enacting the income tax, the American government was proclaiming that all wealth belonged to the government, and whatever wealth the government did not seize from the person who created it should be looked on as a concession—a gift from the government." But Boortz doesn't quote Chodorov, and he gives no source that he is referencing. He subtly seems to imply that Chodorov was opposed to the income tax because it was an income tax and that, therefore, he might be inclined to support the FairTax if he were alive. But this couldn't possibly be true because Chodorov considered taxation itself to be robbery . How is justifying the federal government spending almost $3 trillion a year of the taxpayers money, as long as it is collected "fairly," any different from the viewpoint that Chodorov condemns? While making the case for not allowing exemptions from the FairTax for food, Boortz, in using the example of a wedding reception, inadvertently shows his true colors: "Would it be fair to allow a multimillionaire to spend $20,000 on food for a large wedding reception at his estate, and not pay any sales tax on that purchase?" Why, of course it would. It would be fairer than forcing the American people to pay a 23 percent national sales tax on every good and service they purchase.
Problem #17: The FairTax makes welfare universal. Millions of people who never took a dime from other taxpayers in the form of food stamps, SSI, AFDC, Medicaid, WIC, or housing assistance will now be on the federal dole via the prebate. The FairTax is welfare for the masses. It makes us all wards of the state. Perhaps it would be best, in the interest of equity and efficiency, if all the money Americans earned was just paid to the state and then distributed to every American in a "fair" manner. The government could just keep what it needed, redistribute what's left, and do it all without the FairTax.
The FairTax is not the solution. And because it allows the federal government to confiscate the wealth of American citizens less intrusively and more efficiently, it will become part of the problem—the problem of the ever-increasing, ever-intruding, ever-destroying welfare/warfare state. The FairTax is a fraud. Yet Boortz ties rejection of the FairTax to believing that America is a great country because of its government, "as so many politicians do." Politicians who oppose the FairTax do so because they "thrive on dependency."
The Fraud of the FairTax
The antidote to the fraud of the FairTax is a good dose of the wisdom of Murray Rothbard: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a 'fair tax' is therefore every bit as absurd as that of 'fair theft.'"
Boortz believes that the abolition of the income tax will make the bad day of April 15 "just another beautiful spring day." With its unsubstantiated claims, ridiculous lies, and numerous problems, the FairTax will ensure that everyday is a bad day, not just April 15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
