Feature of the Week
All politics and no play makes Sher a dull boy! Rather than having my non-political drawings sitting in a drawer, I stuck them on the site at Sher's Gallery.
03.26.05 @ 12:19 AM EDT [link]

Social Security and Grazer/Flora Ratios
At the dawn of humanity the standard of living was pretty low by today’s standards. Life was a constant struggle for survival, with every individual spending virtually every hour of a long day on basic subsistence. In contrast, modern society affords amenities far beyond those enjoyed by even the most glorious king of old. What’s the difference? It all nicely boils down to productivity increases enabled by advancing technology. For example, agricultural and ranching technology enabled populations to expand beyond the natural ratios between grazing animals and flora, and between predators and prey, ratios that had been unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Fertilizer technology allowed population gains to be continued, saving the Seventeenth Century from starvation. Productivity increases from technology provided enough societal wealth to permit specialization of roles. Everyone no longer needed to spend their entire day on subsistence farming but could instead be a builder, a craftsman, a student, a writer, a couch potato. Productivity increases have allowed each new generation to live better, and also to make greater investments in society as a whole. For example, Social Security has survived and thrived because the generations since its establishment had greater wealth than their predecessors, and they had the wisdom to set aside a small portion of this wealth for seniors. Besides directly benefiting recipients, it also freed working families from their traditional sole responsibility to care for their parents in their old age. It has been some time since the burden of social security, as reflected in the payroll deductions that fund it, were increased. A good part of that increase shouldn’t even count (specifically any surpluses the Social Security Trust Fund has built up over the last several decades), since these funds went to current expenses rather than retirees. In any case, it’s time for the current generation to show the wisdom of all prior American generations and recognize that a small portion of the wealth-generating achievements of the last several decades that have given us cell phones, flat screen HD TVs, and monster SUVs should be reinvested in society. And what if this investment is merely keeping a highly successful program like Social Security intact, with a level of benefit no greater that that provided by the last several generations? The only explanation for unwillingness to do even that is naked greed.
03.24.05 @ 10:01 PM EDT [link]

The Rule of Rule
Perhaps the most fundamental principle of democracy is the rule of law, often expressed as the phrase “a nation of laws, not of men.” The Founding Fathers thought of it as the key differentiator between the United States and England, where the whims of the King carried the force of law. Underlying this principle is the tenet that respect for the system must transcend political passions. Respect for the system must be paramount, lest the will of those with temporarily stewardship of the public trust use their power as a bridge to usurpation in the name of imposing their vision of the greater good. This principle has served us well over the last 200-odd years, and at one point in time was even championed by those calling themselves “conservatives.” What passes for Conservatism nowadays has a “new rule” (an allusion to the Bill Maher shtick). This new rule can be expressed as “the rule of rule.” Under this new rule, anything the majority can do to increase their political power – the power to rule unimpeded in the manner of George III over His Royal Colonies - is fair play. Examples abound, the most recent being the shenanigans in Florida that make a mockery of supposed right wing enthusiasm for states’ rights. And let’s not forget the threat to “rule” against the filibuster rule used so enthusiastically by the right wing during the many years they were out of power. Gone in all of this is any pretense at respect for the system. Their attitude is that if rules, accepted practices, longstanding traditions, constitutional interpretations, and even laws of the land need to be violated in the name of today’s partisan agenda, “Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs!” There is a fine line here, of course. Parties are expected to have the will to power. The line is crossed when they seek to prolong their power not through winning elections but by subverting the system that gave them temporary power, parlaying their momentary majority advantage into authority not enjoyed by their predecessors in the majority. In other words, they may rule that senate rules can be uprooted and ruined under their new rule of rule, but, by the rood, we will rue their role in history’s inevitable ruling that their rule was unruly!
03.23.05 @ 08:39 PM EDT [link]

Your Ownership Dinghy
The right wing loves to pile on to words with high positives. Think of it as marketing 101. If you’re trying to sell soap, for example, you create as many connections as possible between your personal cleaning product an words that people find attractive, that the majority of people will report positive perceptions for, words like “fresh.” Witness “Zest.” Similarly, the right wing has latched onto a couple of high positive words and are relentlessly on message with them. You probably know just what words I mean. The one we’ve been hearing the longest is “jobs.” Who could be opposed to “jobs.” Of course, in the context they use the term, their meaning is closer to “greed” and even “theft,” as in theft of the wealth of future generations by loading them up with debt and using the proceeds of these loans to create artificial prosperity. Another right wing favorite is “life,” a word much in the news lately. The word for today, though, is “ownership.” Like “jobs,” “ownership” carries high-positives in focus group discussion. It carries the impression of control, value, and wealth. Also like “jobs,” the real meaning of the term, in the context of its usage, is quite different, something like “on your own.” If the sum of your benefit is the retirement account you own, it had better be enough because that’s all there’s going to be! And because all retirement funds are locked up in individual accounts, there is nothing to cover extraordinary needs, the situation where, for no fault of their own, a person experiences personal disaster. Here’s an analogy I find to be particularly apt. Think of social security as a cruise ship. If you’re out on the open ocean, you want to be in a large, sturdy boat that will readily whether the inevitable storms. Do you own the ship? Nope. If everyone owns their retirement, they’re not in big ships (except for the Bill Gates’ of the world), but in little dinghies (a small craft like a lifeboat). It has to be one or the other – there isn’t enough money to buy both the private dinghies and, for those whose little boat got swamped in a storm, a big rescue ship. Having just spent a week on a very nice ship that cruised the Pacific, I can tell you that spending that time in a private dinghy wouldn’t have been nearly as much fun, particularly when it rained. On the other hand, it would have been cool to wear a navy hat and make everyone call me Cap’n!
03.22.05 @ 10:23 PM EDT [link]

Bush’s Toilet Paper
Bush was recently quoted as calling the government bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund “pieces of paper.” Statements like this baldly call into question the solidity of the global financial system for which government bonds are the foundation. He implies that Social Security recipients shouldn’t be secure in the redemption of these bonds, that these bonds could well be defaulted on. In fact, a US default would surely destroy the global financial system, as Bush and his cronies well know. It would be irresponsible enough if a random right wing blogger were dissing the likelihood of US government bonds being redeemed, but this is the President of the United States, for Christ’s sake! Social Security Trust Fund bonds are as much “pieces of paper” as are twenty dollar bills. Imagine that the government stopped recognizing US currency as legal tender. There could be only one result: society as we know it would collapse. The end result would be the same were the US to repudiate its debts by reneging on its bonds. All of this all points to a moral solution for the problems of upcoming generations in Social Security, the problems that Bush is lately so fond of citing. He need only change the law so that the payroll taxes going into the fund become real assets rather than payment for the current bills for right wing enthusiasms like war, subsidies, and martial toys. There would thus be no issue with upcoming generations having to use their tax dollars to redeem Social Security Trust Fund bonds, since Social Security’s tangible assets would in fact generate dollars. However, this would require that Bush give up a sweet deal: the current surplus in payments into the Social Security Trust Fund making his deficits look hundreds of billions smaller. Turning surpluses into tangible assets would thus make it impossible to meet his deficit reduction promises without increasing taxes (although the reality, as yet unrecognized by the GOP, is that we’re already there). What are the chances that Bush will finally admit to his moral obligations to the upcoming generation by killing his tax cuts and instituting needed increases? A snowball’s chance in a Midland summer! In any case, future generations might not be happy about redeeming Social Security Trust Fund bonds, but despite what Bush is irresponsibly saying, they’ll have absolutely no choice in the matter. A global financial meltdown will be as bad for them as it would be for us. On the positive side, they’ll probably have more anger with the separate set of bonds comprising the national debt. At least SS Trust Fund bonds were taken out to “help” them (although redeeming them takes exactly the same kind of tax dollar as any other kind of government bond). It’s the thought that counts!
03.21.05 @ 08:02 PM EDT [link]

Road Trip in a Hummer
The budget debate is starting to get surreal. One GOP federal legislator after another talks of “responsibility to future generations,” yet the tax cuts and projected deficits keep getting bigger. Both the House and Senate have added additional cuts to those proposed by the Bush Administration. Something is very wrong that tax cuts are even on the table, considering the explosion of the deficit as a result of the prior rounds of cuts. The only conclusion possible – a conclusion that historians will doubtless reach – is that the Republican Party has completely lost touch with reality. As an aid in understanding the reality of this unreal situation, here’s an analogy that likens achieving the budgetary goal on which all parties agree – no more deficits – to a road trip. Setting the scene, imagine that the journey began in Washington DC on inauguration day 2001 with the objective of driving cross-country to Pike’s Peak. Let’s also stipulate that the car’s driver has a strong preference for right turns, perhaps from frustration with the accommodations that left turns require (since both lanes need to be clear of oncoming traffic). Let’s say that the most recent segment of the journey began the day that the Bush Administration first admitted that the deficit they’d run up needed to be addressed. I picture this as the hard-headed driver being stuck in the middle of nowhere (say a Red State) after ill-advised seat-of-the-pants navigation. At first he tells the passengers of the vehicle that it was entirely appropriate that he’s only making right turns, that they’re not in fact lost, and isn’t the scenery they’re driving through nice? Eventually, though, every lost driver, no matter how macho, is forced to admit that the trip isn’t going as well as he promised it would. So does he change the behavior that got them all lost in the first place? Well, if the vehicle belongs to the GOP (in other words, a gas-guzzling testosterone SUV like a Hummer), the short answer would be “no.” When arriving at an intersection, they’d still only turn to the right, even if a left turn might work much better for getting them to their destination. And of course they’d be constantly making spurious stops at tacky attractions. For example, if a right turn takes them past a baseball event, they’re stopping! If there’s a dedication for the new oilfield in the wildlife refuge, they’re stopping! If there’s a state law they want to weigh in against, they’re stopping! Will they ever make it to the top of Pike’s Peak? Well, every day they’re boasting amount how much ground they’ve covered!
03.20.05 @ 08:38 PM EDT [link]