Taxing the rich, FB conversation

R.W. posted this: 99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth Over $4 Billion | NewsBusters.org 

J.W.: The point is not that they are rich. They are willing to take to tax hikes for the upper class. They support the fact that because they have more, they should give more. I've seen tons of signs of protesters even that say " I am the one percent and I stand with the 99" I don't think it's a big deal that they have the support of some wealthier individuals. 

B.R.: Your son is right. 

R.W.: Except that he's not. The protesters are not against people with money, they are after CERTAIN people with money. And these Liberals billionaires do NOT want their taxes raised. That is the big lie here. They want the INCOME tax raised ...but they don't pay INCOME tax they pay CAPITAL GAINS tax which is different. No billionaire I have seen has said we should raise Capital Gains rates. When Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more income tax than he did he was correct. Because his income doesn't come from a pay check, hers does! And the whole notion that because you have more, you should pay more is bullshit. Should you pay for a loaf of bread based on your income? We should all pay the SAME percentage. That alone would mean that someone making $200,000 pays 10 times as much as someone making $20,000. These protesters sit there in their Nike's and Levi's listening to their I-pods and talking on their Cell phones and those are brought to you by capitalism and corporations! If they want to place blame somewhere, put it on the government. These people who you don't think pay enough, are paying exactly what the government tells them they must. They are obeying the law as set forth by Washington. And if these Hypocrites think they should pay more, please show me ONE billionaire that has given more than the IRS said they owed. In my book, Millionaires and Billionaires are HEROES. They show that you can succeed in this country even if you start out with Nothing. They should be applauded not demonized just because they worked hard and made something of themselves and all these little punks can think to do is sit on their asses and complain that they don't have it easy. I have NO sympathy for the little whiners. 

Me: They have more, and they do give more. They pay a higher proportion of their income now than they did during Carter. Marginal tax rates are different than actual tax paid, and the rich pay more than they ever have. 

B.R.: But R.W., how do you really feel about it? 

R.W.: I know. I was actually excited and pleased that Jeremy jumped in. I respect those with view points which are incorrect a lot more than those with no viewpoints at all. I just read somewhere that if the tax rates were raised the way those Occupiers and Democrats in office wanted, it would only raise like 16 billion dollars more. In government terms that would last us about 15 minutes. I'll have to try and find that so my numbers are more accurate. My friend R.S. that chimed in usually has those figures either in his head or at his finger tips. Maybe if we are real nice he'll post them for us. My friend B.R. here, didn't wait for someone to hand him a job after college. He started his own theatre company. I respect that. My son J.W. has chosen a field that will ALWAYS be in demand, Math Teacher. How many of these protesters got a degree in communications or Renaissance art history, and now figure corporations should fall over backwards to give them a job. Randy has his own business. Should he be forced to hire 3 or 4 more people even though he doesn't need them? Of course he would have to give them Full benefits and a retirement package. These kids need to learn how the world operates before they start criticizing. And the poor things don't even realize that the Rich people supporting them are doing it for their OWN self interests, whether they be financial or political or both. 

B.R.: Thanks for the respect. I started a theater company in 2006. But I couldn't start one now, because of consumer spending that crashed in the recession. I don't need a handout from corporations or rich people, I need them to act in the interest of the nation's economy. Me: People act in their own interests. That is all that should be expected of anyone. If people decide to be charitable, that is also their business. No one, especially government, has the right to force people to serve the interests of others. No one has claim to anyone else's property. 

Me: As far as the rich paying more, we already know that whenever another dollar is taxed into government coffers, government spends $1.83. The problem is not, and never has been, a tax problem. It has always been a spending problem. 

B.R.: You're making an assumption that the only two ways to act are selfishly and charitably. Let's forget everything for a moment except salary ratios. The disparity between the average CEO's compensation and the average non-executive staff member's compensation has been growing exponentially for years. In 1965, the ratio was 20:1. By 1997, it was 115:1. That rate of expansion has continued. Let's agree on one thing: less Americans would struggle financially if this disparity eased up even a little bit. Right? We can agree on that? 

Me: How exactly will cutting CEO pay help you in any way? I am asking seriously. Oh, and I am not suggesting only two ways to act. And I did not day "selfishly," I said acting in their self interest. Further, it's not anyone's business if someone is acting selfishly, let alone in their self interest, or even charitably. Greed is a moral failing, and you can't legislate morality. 

B.R.: It won't help me, it will help others. I'm doing fine, I just have this nagging feeling that 8.6 percent of Americans could use some help. If a large company paid its executives a minor fraction less, it could afford to spend that savings on new positions that would not only help that 8.6, but likely help the business' bottom line by improving efficiency and productivity. It's a smart financial move AND it considers the state of their national and local economy. See, it's not my place to ask someone in the 1% for a handout, or a moral shift. But it is certainly my place to ask them to act like leaders and compromise for the sake of the 8.6%, who God knows have done enough compromising themselves. 

Me: I don't mean to be condescending, but do you know why a company hires people? Do you think it's simply a matter of having some dollars laying around doing nothing? Maybe you don't realize is it because there is work that needs to be done? What I'm saying is that what a CEO is paid is not relevant to how many people are hired. If 8.6% of people need help, may I respectfully inquire what you personally are doing to help them? Maybe you could take a cut in pay and hire someone? Or perhaps you could write a check to the soup kitchen and stop worrying about what others do with there own money? 

B.R.: A wise man said "be wary of philosophies that require minimum effort from - but provide maximum benefit to - the believer". It's willful ignorance to think that the size of a CEO's paycheck doesn't have an impact on the hiring of new employees. Every company I've worked for has wanted more staff members to delegate the ever-increasing workload, but could not afford the payroll expense of new employees. Corporate chains, multi-million dollar non-profits, independent production companies - they all want more people on the team, to make everyone's job more efficient and to hit their departmental goals. If corporations paid less to executives and more to new hires, the economy would benefit and more Americans would be employed.

B.R.: What am I doing? First, I'm supporting my girlfriend, who is one of the 8.6%. Second, I'm delegating parts of my job to an assistant, which I'm paying for with my own salary. Third, I'm having conversations like this. 

Me: Respectful inquires get huffy responses. 

Me: Willful ignorance? Restating your opinion is not an advancement of your argument. Try again. 

Me: If "they all want more people on the team," perhaps you could explain why corporations are being accused of holding back on expenditures resulting in high unemployment? It can't be both ways. 

B.R.: Rational conclusions get meta-conversational diversions. I can't explain corporations' actions, or lack thereof, that's why I'm saying they should stop holding back on expenditures that would create more jobs. 

Me: ‎*Sigh* I'm asking you to explain the contradiction. On one hand you claim that cutting CEO pay would free up dollars for hiring, but on the other hand corporations are supposedly hanging on to to a bunch of excess money and not hiring.

JFK and tax policy - FB conversation

S.B. posted this picture with the comment: yeah. I'm a liberal.


LIKE & SHARE - if you agree with JFK's statement... How is it, that 50 years later, Kennedy's inaugural speech is still unmatched in it's vision and motivational power?

Me: ‎"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

S.B.: Yep. And you know what the top marginal tax rate was in 1963 when JFK said that?

that's right: 91%. So the wealthiest Americans paid a 91% tax on the last dollars of their income. And yet, those were prosperous times, with a lot of people coming into the middle class for the first time. We built our interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon....

What is it today? 33%. Lower than it was than during the Clinton era, where again, the economy prospered.

Just filling in the rest of the story for you, Rich.

Me: In the early sixties, the top 1% paid 27% of all personal income taxes. Now, it is 37%.

Just filing in the rest of the story for you, Scott.

S.B.: From Wikipedia: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw the...ir income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927"

Pardon me if I have a hard time believing that our current tax policies punish the wealthy. If that's punishment, then punish me, please!

Me: Good for them, and they are paying more taxes as a result. Doesn't change the fact the Kennedy advocated tax cuts as a means for economic growth.

I did not claim that our current tax policies punish the wealthy.

J.M.: Tax cuts can be good for the economy under the correct economic circumstances. Additionally, tax rates should be adjusted down or up accordingly. And within a properly regulated environment it works. But when loose regulations and low tax rates allow wealth to accumulate to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population the ability to be flexible becomes more difficult. And keep in mind that the middle class shared far more of that wealth in Kennedy's time. This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around because it contradicts their flawed ideology that somehow the free market will correct itself. As we have seen over the past 3 decades, that hasn't worked. Call it trickle down or voodoo economics or whatever they want to call it today... it's the same thing.

Me: J.M., your whole presentation is premised on the assumption that the government possesses the ability to discern, manipulate, and then properly implement tax changes that will yield desired societal outcomes, or at least, outcomes that agree with your social engineering preferences.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that such manipulations have done anything except harm the economy. The "experts" have failed every time.

Fact is, this country is teetering on the brink because of the very techniques you advocate.

And by the way, your condescending remarks are uncivil and unwarranted. I request that you make your case, if you have one, without the insinuations that people like me are stupid.

J.M.: Rich, this is something I like to call "Social Memory Lapse". You actually cited a great example (JFK) earlier, and then repeated the oft heard argument that government is incapable of implementing desired and fair outcomes. I'm not trying to pick a fight but it should be pretty clear using that example that government can and does a good job of taxing and regulating where needed. I would say it's gotten much more difficult in this current political environment due to the tossing about of terms like "social engineering".

J.M.: For example: Christmas is social engineering. A created for masses holiday and not actually rooted in Christianity. We've adopted it as one and jolly good and fine with me. But that is social engineering. Government is about protecting and promoting a society. If you and I only had the experience of not having a government we all might appreciate the good it does. Even when we perceive parts of it as wrong.

J.M.: And lastly, I was never at any point condescending. Simply being matter of fact. I've re-read my posts and can't find anything that would warrant that remark. Cheers and Happy Holidays!

Me:

‎1) JFK was not advocating the continual manipulation of economics, he wanted an across the board tax cut as a means of spurring economic activity and increasing revenues to the government. Trickle down.

2) Social engineering is an accurate term. The fact that you bristle at its use is unfortunate, but if you have a better term that describes government meddling in the economy, I'll consider using it.

3) Agreed about Christmas. There should be no governmental favor extended to it.

4) "Not having a government" vs. "good government" is a false binary equation. I did not advocate no government. In fact, please point out a national figure who has, or retract your statement.

5) You wrote, "This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around..." Norquista suggests a mind-numbed follower of Norquist, which is first the introduction of an irrelevant tangent, and second it is coupled with a dismissive tag, "...can't get their heads around..." In other words, they're (or I'm) too stupid to understand your nuanced, clever positions.

That is condescending and insulting. But you knew that.

J.M.: Again on JFK and connecting it to my first post. Under the correct economic circumstances. Trickle down cannot be argued in that context as it can in today's.

J.M.: As for 2, it's simply not the same thing. We disagree.

As for 3, LOL... indeed. But we all can enjoy the time with family for the better at least.

As for 4, I'm merely pointing out one extreme to another and I'll leave the center of that argument for anyone's interpretative assumptions. My libertarian streak would rather less governing law in some areas and more in others were stark inequality and injustice exist.

As for 5, had I known your fondness for Grover, I might have been more gentle. I find the man wanting and have seen him continually stumble in the face of facts and return to unsupported arguments in his own defense which suggests he is less interested in how things actually work, and more interested in an ideology. It's not to say everything he promotes is a bad idea (corn subsidies is a good example), its just that the foundation of his beliefs are flawed. And the folks that are nodding their heads with him I fear are not really catching on to that and find it easier to accept the black and white view he is selling instead of thoughtfully evaluating what he is saying and shaping the message towards good public policy. And I think that shapes the rights view of Obama supporters as one way or the other when many of us disagree with him on fundamental issues. But I don't find Obama as cast in stone as Grover by any means. Far more flexible in my opinion. Perhaps too much in some areas, and not enough in others. That seems to be in stark contrast to those who follow Norquist.

So no, I didn't know that. How could I? I don't know you.

Me: No, you don't know me, but you assumed I held Norquist in high regard. In actual fact, I don't.

Which means you draw conclusions about people based on stereotypes, which explains why you are unable to understand what I am writing.

We all have these lenses that we filter data through. I'll leave it to you to sort out your own, as I will mine. In the meantime, we might wish to re-read each others' posts to ascertain what was actually being said.

J.P.: I know everyone likes the rage, but reality is revealed in a simple observation. That observation is not about Democrat or Republican, but rather conservative vs. progressive. The question is when did America (the United States to be precise) rise to great power status and why? Was it the result of conservative stand pat or progressive political ideology? Unless one engages in extraordinary revisionism and self deception, progressive policy led to great power status. Conservatism sought to maintain (by nature conservatism leads nowhere, since it seeks to maintain what is) what is: social inequity of all kinds -- take your pick. Institutionalized plutocracy, sexism, racism, imperialism, and religious orthodoxy. The Republicans that have made the difference (and a large one) were progressives. They overthrew orthodoxys such as slavery, monopolistic unregulated capitalism and the cold war as a never ending institutionalized conflict. When a Republican has a new idea, I'll consider voting for one, not before.

Me: Progressives progress? Tautology.

The church - being vs. doing

I had the pleasure of attending a class intended to introduce us to the basics of the new direction my church will be taking with you as the new pastor at the helm. Pastor, you did a lot of work on the study materials, covering a lot of ground in a very thoughtful and insightful way.

We were told that you would be welcoming suggestions for improving the study material, a courageous offer. Not many pastors would allow such vulnerability. A new pastor, in particular, risks a potential tug-of-war with “ambitious” parishioners. Yes, unfortunately there are people in congregations who look for opportunities for personal gain and position. So, offering this level of trust, while possibly fraught with peril, is nevertheless refreshingly without guile.

So, I am going to take you up on your offer. I do not want to impose my agenda or elevate myself. I also do not want to suggest in any way that you are lacking wisdom or expertise. This is submitted solely to present a perpective you might not have considered.

Also, I am not going to quibble over the organizational structure of the study materials, the verses selected, or the use of certain words or phrases. My presentation shall be based on a more organic critique, one which aims to get at the root of the matter.

The study material provided to us was, I assume, wholly prepared and written by you. Certainly it was written through your lens of understanding, for we all filter through our own understandings. Indeed, churches are built on various premises, doctrinal positions, and experiences. I think the study material reveals your particular perspective, passion, and anointing, which translates into what you believe is the calling of this church; that is, primarily evangelism and outreach.

Unfortunately, these are not specifically foundational. Such things do grow out of foundational understandings, but they are not themselves foundational. In fact, I would assert that if the foundational understandings of our church is unclear, miscast, or non-existent, any resultant ministry could be faulty. One cannot build a church without a foundation.

so, I want to know what those foundations are for my church. And, I have some input on what those foundations might need to be.

One particular concept discussed in the study material, the idea of partnership, is worth mentioning. The study material discusses partnership in the context of the obligations, activities, duties, and understandings that the individual needs to embrace. There is little or no discussion of the other half of the partnership, that is, what are the things we can expect from the church? One cannot partner with another party without knowing what that party is offering.

Further, this is only two strands of the cord. What about the third cord, God? Our partnership has a supernatural element, where the Holy Spirit informs the two other parties, bringing unity, vision, and purpose. Our human relationships in the church are only possible by having relationship with God.

Several weeks ago I asked you what you thought this church was called to be. You responded with various ministry ideas and activities, so I approached it again (as humbly as I could), saying something like, “Those are all good things, and churches should do those things, but I asked about being, not doing.” So, now that I have participated in this class I find myself returning to the same question I asked weeks before: What is this church called to be? It's a critical, foundational question.

I have my own opinons about what constitutes the foundations of a healthy church. These criteria here are in no particular order:

1) The pursuit and identification of God’s purpose, calling, and vision for the church. This must be continually reinforced with the congregation, a process sometimes known as “vision casting.”
2) A primary and ceaseless hunger for the presence of God. This is a purposeful, systematic, every day process.
3) An ambition to be a worshiping church. Worship invites the presence of God, and the presence of God carries the Word, and the Word tells us who we are, who God is, and what His heart is for us.
4) A place of safety and belonging for attendees, thereby facilitating holy relationships
5) A secure, mature, wise church leadership, composed of prophets, teachers, apostles, evangelists, and pastors. Rarely, if at all, is all of this invested in one man as titular head of the congregation. If any are not in place, the church will be unbalanced and ultimately dysfunctional.
6) Identity: We must be know who we are, and the church must know who it is.

Notice that none of this is an activity or a ministry. They are parts of what could be described as a state of being, a belonging, a platform upon which a church will be built. We start with being, and that is where we come to understand doing. We must know who we are before we can know what we will do.

We must begin at the beginning. We learn who God is as we simultaneously learn who we are in Christ. This comes via worship, teaching, pastoring, and the Word. We begin to learn the surpassing greatness of knowing and being known. Then our gifts discerned, identified, and nurtured so that they can be integrated into the purpose, calling, and vision of the church.

As I have written before, worship is central to everything else. By worship I do not mean the four or five songs we sing, the offering, and/or the obedient service we render unto the Lord. These are activities associated with worship, vehicles upon which worship can be carried... that is, various expressions of worship. But they are not worship itself. Worship is being in the presence of God.

Being.

It is from the foundation of worship we discover identity; being in the presence of God, hearing His voice, abiding in Him. From that we can build a church that honors God and ministers to people, and furthers His kingdom on earth.

Humbly submitted,

Rich

Media bias and the free market: FB conversation

I posted this picture, and we discussed it:

S.B.: it's just the free market, doing it's thing, Rich. You should be embracing it.

Me: Pointing out its bias is not the same as opposing them. However, part of the definition of free market is willing buyer and willing seller, i.e., full disclosure. The media continue to pretend that they are objective and fair, which is deception. That is not part of the free market.

S.B.: lol. so it's the free market until it fails to produce the result you want, right?

Me: No, it fails the test of the criteria free market: willing transactions between parties, an exchange of value, a legal purpose, and full disclosure. This is a major reason the mainstream media is a losing viewership/readership. It provides a faulty product.

S.B.: well what you describe, applies to MOST commercial transactions. When I go to Best Buy to buy a TV, THEY won't tell me what the repair stats are, what their margin is, what the environmental performance of their suppliers is, etc -- I can get that from third parties if I'm lucky, but the same is true in the media -- there are plenty of third party watchdogs.

Maybe we need more regulation to force better disclosure, etc? ;-)

Me: That's part of the self-correcting nature of the free market. Groups and individuals gather statistics and test products, then inform consumers, who then can enter into more informed decisions.

It is not a failure of the free market when one or another party is deceptive, it is a violation of the free market.

It is ironic that private parties like Consumer Reports, which effectively polices violations of the free market as a private entity, advocates policies (more government involvement) that would run them out of business.

Wal-Mart Occupied - editorial

Wal-Mart was Occupied on Black Friday. I happen to agree with some of Occupy’s positions, especially their opposition to the unholy alliance between big business and government. Government has done much damage to our country as a result of sweetheart deals, favorable contracts, and preferential treatment.

However, I think it is curious that the Occupiers support favoritism for local businesses, but oppose the very same thing for big corporations. Apparently the Occupiers are ok with government picking favorites as long as it is their favorites. Make no mistake, government is picking favorites. Government is deciding which companies deserve support and which ones do not. Government is assuming the power to influence your shopping choices, and it is perfectly willing to punish those businesses it deems unworthy.

Or did you forget about the $500,000 in extortion money Wal-Mart paid to the city a few years ago? Regardless of how much you might agree with those government-favored choices, there is no escaping that such activities are a violation of liberty, capitalism, and limited government. Government has no business interfering with peoples’ private, legal choices. The idea of government doing this ought to offend everyone.

I do like that Occupy is attempting to persuade peoples’ opinions by engaging in protest. Free speech is a powerful way to effect change. Of course, by doing this they are making a tacit admission that their real complaint is not with big business, it is with the shopping decisions of private citizens. You see, businesses can’t force people to shop at their stores. Businesses really have no power at all without people willing to part with their dollars. The power of ideas can influence that.

Occupy is not above criticism, however. I think it improper to enter the premises of a private business pretending to be shoppers and protest the activities of that business. Even worse, Occupy’s rap sheet now exceeds 400 incidents nationwide, including rape, vandalism, assault, and theft. No wonder Wal-Mart removed them. Kinda makes me yearn for the good old days of TEA party protests. Their sole crime was being accused of racism (falsely, it turns out).

I took the time to read some of the literature the Occupiers were handing out. They make some doubtful claims. For instance, one handout proclaims that local businesses are better for the local economy than chain stores. Being naturally skeptical, I decided to check it out. I did something I doubt a single Occupier did, I actually called the Bozeman Wal-Mart. I learned that the Bozeman store buys 12% ($12 million) of its inventory from local suppliers. They obtain local services, like snow removal, landscaping, and building repair, to the tune of over $500,000 per year. They spend thousands on local advertising. Payroll is $10 million. They gave over $220,000 to various charities. Their electric bill is $60,000 per month. Real estate taxes run $27,000 per month. 

All this is locally spent money. This calls to question the oft-stated notion that Big Box stores are bad for communities. But there’s more. There are unseen effects that positively impact the community as well. Out of town shoppers not only spend dollars at these stores, they shop at other local businesses. Consumers, by saving money on their purchases, free up their dollars to spend elsewhere. 

You might think I’m cheerleading for big business, but I’m actually cheerleading for free enterprise, the free and legal choices consumers make when unencumbered by the oppression of government. Of course as a local business owner I would prefer everyone buy their insurance from me. But I refuse to invoke the heavy hand of government to force people into choosing me. I am a true capitalist for better or worse. I offer the best product I can and leave it to consumers to decide what to do with their own money. 

That is the only edge any business is entitled to.

NPR, conservatives, and budget cuts - FB conversation

S.B. shared this: GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
www.theonion.com
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S...

S.Y.: Wow, what a relief. So on to world peace then?

S.B.: Yeah, according to Michelle Bachmann, all we need to do is close the US embassy in Iran.

You know, the one that we haven't had since 1979?

S.B.: (so it ought to be easy-peasy) ;-)

Me: Cancel NPR and a hundred (or thousand) other wasteful, useless government programs.

S.B.: yep. let 'em eat cake.

Me: What does the head of NPR make a year, $600,000?

S.B.: I've got no idea rich.

J.J.: That's a shovel-ready option!

J.P.: PBS and NPR provide an important spice in American culture. It's worth the modest investment. Look what has become of cable and what that's done to broadcast TV. The commerical mudwrestling over advertising space and the mindless and heartless statisical outcome of that has driven it to the inevitable optimized market result: the invisible hand would like to know whether you'd like a Coors Light or Bud Light with your Big Mac? How about a tasty Hostess Twinky and a 44 oz Coke for dessert? And how about the "educational" programming on cable TV? Ha!!! What a joke. Shows about aliens, the supernatural and other superstitious nonsense. It's turned into the equivalent of reading a supermarket tabloid. Is there good commerical programming? Absolutely, though you have to look pretty hard to find it in the wasteland of reality TV. Is there independent commercial programming? Nope -- independence costs something and there's no room in the commercial market model for such luxuries. So why does the right wing hate public broadcasting? Is it really about saving the tax payer a few bucks? Of course not. Watch Frontline, the Newshour and listen to All Things Considered and you'll know what's bugging them immediately. That sorta thing is precisely why they want to cut PBS and NPR. It used to be argued that if you were conservative, you had no heart, if liberal, you had no brain. From the looks of the new conservatives, they have neither and don't want to compete with such.

E.S.: My question is where can the GOP cut funding? And when does the spending stop? Yeah lets raise taxes on the rich! Why so we can spend even more? Or try and reduce the deficit? Ill bet the rich wouldn't mind a tax increase if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.

Me: Hmm. I turn on "This Old House" and there's advertising for Lumber Liquidators, GMC, and State Farm insurance.

The supposed "wasteland" of commercial television does not justify NPR. Non sequitur.

J.P., someone disagrees, and for some reason you seem compelled to insult and denigrate. You can do better.

J.P.: It's useful to remind oneself that GOP policies haven't led to prosperity since early in the last century. One can persuasively argue that ending the stupidity of overwhelming state's rights and slavery through a civil war and ending crony monopolistic unregulated capitalism established good foundations for national wealth and power over the next century (the so-called American Century). Those were great GOP ideas prior to 1915. I doubt such ideologies would be supported by today's mob of neoconservative troglidites. The greatest period of prosperity was lead by New Deal Democrats (FDR's tribe) taking advantage of GOP progressive policies (TR and his tribe). Regardless of party affiliation, progressives are responsible for national wealth and power, not conservatives. Conservatives appear to have contributed very little of value. If you think you like the good old days, you know Leave it to Beaver and Mayberry RFD, you should brush up on who was controlling the Legislature from 1933 to 1994. With regard to what the GOP can cut... it's mythology. In review, Ronald Reagan expanded government while cutting taxes (exploding deficit spending). George HW Bush moderated that huge expansion and raised taxes though he couldn't turn back Reagan's deluge of spending by any means (he got the axe from the GOP base for trying). Bill Clinton ran a surplus effectively shrinking government though he didn't really want to. George W Bush expanded government and started an expensive and unnecessary war while slashing taxes. He never felt any reason to pay for anything. Obama is trying to prevent a total collapse of the US and global economy stemming largely from 30 years of struggles on tax and spending policy and failed financial sector deregulation in 1999. Basically, it can be said that no one has really cut back the government though one side claims it as a rhetorical plank as though they are a champion of such. I suggest that history indicates they're mostly full of crap.

J.P.: Rich: some things are worth a little hyperbole. I was a faithful Republican for 25 years as my close friends can attest. But this new group are not my Republican party -- that I inherited from long family tradition. It was a disappointment, but finally I had enough and had to decide between them and what I felt was in the national interest. George W Bush made that easier, but this new group... Wow, just wow! They need a time out.

Me: No one here is defending GOP policies. Conservative philosophy has not governed financial policy for many decades.

Bill Clinton did not give us a surplus. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Only Congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. None of these presidents did what you claimed.

FDR presided over and extended the longest period of financial devastation the country has ever seen.

Everything you have written is false.

Your hyperbole was not generic. I expect an apology.

E.S.: GOP does not equal conservatism.
I do not support deficit spending no matter where it comes from.
It seems the only real cuts in our massive spending are coming from the right at the moment.
What would be ok for conservatives to cut to try and save us from collapse that liberals wouldn't harp on?
Fact: we cannot keep this spending up and expect to be okay.

E.S.: And we need more cuts than defense spending to balance the budget and i don't rule out those cuts.

Me: E.s., allow me to anticipate the next comment from the Left: So where were you when Bush was runnning up the debt and waging two illegal wars? Here's another: Bush is responsible for the huge debt, Obama is just trying to dig us out of the mess he inherited. Ooo, ooo! Here's a good one: Tax cuts for the weathly are what is causing the debt.

S.B.: E.S., - quick: without resorting to google tell me how much federal funding that NPR gets each year? What % of the budget? How much impact will that have if we eliminate it?

A joke is really lost on the true believers, isn't it?

U.M.: Rich - tax cuts for the wealthy ARE what's causing the debt. How do you not understand this? It's really not complicated. Also, at this point if you support the republican party and you are NOT one of the top 400 richest Americans (and I'm guessing you're not) you're screwing yourself over. You are voting for people who are going to make things WORSE for you. NOT BETTER, WORSE. Ethan - the idea tha we can't afford public broadcasting is BULLSHIT. Plane and simple. Last year's taxpayer outlay for public broadcasting was $420 million. Meanwhile, corporate tax breaks cost the US $100 billion dollars annually. The combination of rampant greed and unabashed ignorance coming from the right today is sickening.

Me: And pick out a couple hundred other programs that can be eliminated as well. That's just the low-hanging fruit.

E.S.: Its probably very minimal but it doesn't change the fact that we can't afford it does it? Do u know that off the top of your head without looking it up?

U.M.: Scott- I just answered your question :) And yes, unfortunately you have to have a basic level of intelligence in order to understand sarcasm.

E.S.: Defunding that by itself wouldn't eliminate any of the deficit but combining it with many other federal programs and waste in all departments most certainly would help.

Me: U.M., your bare assertion does not establish fact. As mentioned before, only congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. That's what they do, and their spending easily outstrips revenue.

Increasing revenue a dollar increases spending $1.83. Sorry, U.M, it's not a revenue problem.

I also noted above that I was not defending GOP policies. Perhaps you should read what is written before commenting.

Oh, and don't forget to add another profanity. That certainly establishes the power of your argument.

U.M.: Rich - The "low hanging fruit" that you speak of is all programs for low-income people. I know this, because I'm currently going to school for social work, so I'm right in the thick of it. Frankly I find it extremely offensive that you consider food & heating assistance (for example) for people wasteful. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I swear all the time. I'm done being polite to people who are running this country into the ground, sir.

Me: Maybe a little economic quiz is in order.

1) How much revenue will be produced over the next 5 years if we tax the top 10% of earners at 100%?

2) How much tax in total is paid by corporations of all sizes?

3) How much economic activity is provided for each dollar of Unemployment paid?

S.B.: E.S., actually, I DID know, because I've been a donor to NPR for about 15 years. the federal share of NPR's funding is apprx. $$3M/year. or about 0.00001% of the current federal budget.

So when someone says that efforts to defund NPR are primarily motivated by the desire to cut the deficit, you can be pretty sure they are full of shit. Because putting that much political capital into a move that affects about one millionth share of the federal budget is NOT going to get us there.....and trust me, it would be a big political battle to defund it.

So you can assume it's about symbolism, about striking a blow against intellectualism (the real demon of the political right at the moment, though that has not always been the case), and about "getting even" for a perceived political bias of those nasty NPR people.

Yes, we need to cut the deficit. THat's the point of the satire in the Onion -- even mentioning NPR or other miniscule programs like it in the deficiit debate, rather than focusing on those things that are large enough to matter -- THAT is a failure to take the issue seriously. But it is chronic.

You want to tackle the deficit? Tackle Defense. Tackle entitlements. START with the big stuff, where the effort involved (and the inevitable economic pain that the country will suffer as part of the "cure"), will be rewarded with actual progress.

If you want to SOUND tough on the deficit, but accomplish nothing, then sure, focus your time on miniscule programs and portions, sound righteous and accomplish nothing.

Me: U.M., you assume a lot, based on preconceived notions and prejudice. You don't know me, yet you judge me without evidence. That is bigotry.

Good for you, you swear. You must be proud. But maybe you can put a thought or two together and make an argument.

U.M.: Ahem: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#

S.B.: you guys be nice. I hate deleting threads but will do so if people start acting like jackasses towards each other.

Appropriating Christmas - Christianity is good when it serves your agenda

The Nation sent me another email, capitalistically hawking their coffee mugs, t-shirts, and pencils. I clicked on the link, and this banner was across the top of their website.

The Left sure loves Jesus and Christianity when they can use them as a bludgeon. Cynical.

Signs that the election is heating up

You can be sure we're within 1 year of the election, because

1) Gas prices start falling
2) Unemployment lowers
3) Republicans are elevated one by one and systematically destroyed
4) Housing starts magically rise
5) The media trumpets Obama's "accomplishments"
6) The media attempts to pit one Republican candidate against another instead of Obama
7) Mentioning Obama's failures is racism
8) Republican initiatives are routinely described as hateful, greedy, or evil

The great whitewash of the Obama record now begins in earnest.

The Federal Reserve - FB conversation

L.B. posted this: Please listen to this message from Senator Dennis Kucinich. It only takes a couple of miniutes but lays out the way for the people of the United States to regain soveriegnty
The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw&feature=share

Me: He correctly identifies the symptoms, then blames the private sector? The Fed, basically a part of government, is the conduit of funds for the government. The government decides to deficit spend, the fed prints the money, the government receives it and issues bonds to the Fed to cover the money it receives. Essentially, the government is loaning money to itself and the Fed holds the bonds it receives for printing the money the government. Something wrong with this equation, and Kucinich is part of the problem.

L.B.: You don't get it Rich! The Fed is not a part of the government, it is a privately held corporation owned by elitist world power brokers. The Fed essentially creates dollars out of thin air then we the tax payers have to pay them back with interest. Its a giant sucking sound coming out of your pockets to enrich world bankers. It is robbery of the first order and our government, yes Barack Obama, is enabling it to happen!

L.B.: PS The reason I used Senator Kucinich is because many of my friends are lefties and won't read or believe anything that comes out of the right wing media bias. Its great when one of their own gets at least a piece of the picture.

Me: I'm tracking with you, my brother. Kucinich is useful in that regard.

By the way, the Fed was created by an act of congress in 1913, and the board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, but according to law is subject to congressional oversight.

L.B.: If the fed is subject to congress then explain why during the TARP bail out they gave the mega banks in the US and Europe 9 trillion dollars when congress only authorized 900 billion?

Me: It's a shocker I know, but congress doesn't always follow the law... especially when they can spend other peoples' money without limit.

Taxpayers fund public employees - FB Conversation

S.B. posted a link to an article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

M.G.: Are we surprised?? Recall Walker -- the puppet!!

S.J.: gov. walker is such a tool

Me: ‎"The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose..." If the taxpayer isn't the source for compensation, deferred or otherwise, then who is?

S.J.: the employee earned it

Me: Begging the question. What is the source of the money?

S.J.: bit of a circle there, i'm not saying state employees should not exist because their salaries come out of the tax base--am saying walker's a tool for saying workers need to "contribute more" to their pensions when 100% = 100%. he's a dishonest tool misrepresenting the situation and a real reason why unions are still needed.

Me: We need to be clear. All compensation paid to public employees, whether in cash, deferred income, or benefits like health insurance, comes from then pockets of taxpayers. Also, deferred income is not paid by the employee because the employee never received the money. Therefore, the taxpayer is funding it 100%.

S.J.: it's not being unclear, sticking to and not being diverted from the original point of the article which is walker's toolishness

Me: Would it be fair to say that the point of the article is contained in its title? "Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions."

Taxpayers fund the entire pension. Period.

S.J.: poorly worded, many headlines are (brevity, stupidity, etc.) but doesn't mitigate walker's earlier dishonest campaigning against state workers. whether working for the state or a corporation, a living wage for contributing to service or profit is due compensation. evaluating an individual position or performance is fair; inaccurately inferring that an entire class is unfairly receiving benefit is loathsome

Me: Sigh."If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue," advice the author himself ought to follow. The whole substance of the article (actually, an opinion piece) is a false premise, one that you are promulgating, is that The governor is wrong because the employee is paying for it. The fact, is the taxpayer is. Why is this so hard to see?

The governor was guilty of nothing more than imprecision. The writer is either misinformed or misleading.

John Preston writes a letter to the editor, cell phones and driving

Thank you for writing your letter to the editor. You have done a rare thing. You addressed my editorial point-by-point and actually discussed those points. My hat is off to you. Well done!

Since you asked some questions, please permit me the opportunity to respond. Sorry for its length. I shall quote you and interlace my responses.

Rich makes the bold statement that statistically speaking talking on a cell phone is not dangerous. Rich, I fear it is not a question of if, but instead when we will have a serious injury or death attributed to a driver using a handheld device. Should we wait until then to respond?

Most certainly we will have a serious injury or death attributed to cell phones. That is not being disputed. As I noted in my editorial, Bozeman already has a careless driving law. Therefore distracted driving is already illegal. We have laws against all sorts of other things, like theft and murder. We seem to love it when government passes laws as if doing so has solved a problem. But have those laws eliminated those activities?

I need to make clear, I am not arguing against having laws. What I am saying is, what is the factual basis for the Commission passing this law? Will it really reduce risk? There is always a risk in every activity we do. We continually make decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, as to whether the benefit outweighs those risks. We trust that the brakes will work in our car every time we use them. We take it on faith that the burger we are eating does not contain a razor blade. We assume it to be true that the person driving in the lane next to us is competent to drive.

You are concerned about one death, certainly noble. But Mr. Preston, if you place such a high value on that hypothetical single life, it would seem that you must then be in favor of eliminating all preventable loss of life. Therefore, driving ought to be banned entirely, because it is risky and a lot of people are injured or die from driving. McDonald's should be shut down for killing people with unhealthy food. And skydiving is way too dangerous to allow.

The fact is, we accept a certain amount of potential calamity in exchange for certain benefits. We allow death and injury in order to enjoy convenience, quality of life, and/or liberty. Risk cannot be eliminated. Some risks cannot be reduced without unacceptable tradeoffs. The freedom to travel outweighs the number of highway deaths that result from this freedom. The freedom to choose for ourselves how we live our lives means we can eat McDonalds as much or as little as we want. We walk down the street knowing that someone may rob us.

We mitigate those risks as much as we can, not only by our personal habits and diligence, but also by sensible and effective laws. Traffic lights, for example, are demonstrably effective at mitigating loss and injury, as well as maintaining a degree of order for efficient traffic flow. However, banning cell phones regulates a statistically low risk activity for undemonstrated benefits.

Rich feels that the City Commission, in an act of tyranny, solved a problem that doesn’t exist. Rich, I wish you could have been with me half way across Mendenhall (in the crosswalk) as a woman talking on her phone sped past and never even flicked her eyes in my direction. Ask around, Rich, there are countless examples people can give you.

Please quote me accurately. I wrote the problem doesn’t statistically exist. That is, by objective measure, it is not dangerous.

You example is what I referred to in my editorial as an anecdote. It is a non-statistical, unverified, unquantified account which does not establish the point being made. Further, what this driver did is already illegal. Another law will not change the situation.

I spend a lot of time walking myself. Almost every day I see someone doing something foolish behind the wheel. I would venture to say that much of that foolishness is already illegal. Interestingly, I have never observed someone on a cell phone causing an incident. But I note for the record that this is also anecdotal, which is why making laws based on nothing but anecdotes and emotion is perilous.

Rich is troubled by Commissioner Chris Mehl’s comment about the city having time to “educate people.” I was at the meeting when Chris made that comment and I assumed that he was referring to education pertaining to the newness of the law so drivers would be aware of it and thus avoid the consequences of breaking it. Luckily Rich, using his ability to spot a liberal conspiracy behind every bush, saw that Chris is deviously planning to send us all to some sort of re-education camp for brainwashing. I bet they’ll even use some “enhanced interrogation techniques” in their effort to warp our brains.

What you assume and what I assume matter little. Your conclusion went to one side, mine to the other. At least I had the good taste to admit that I may be overreacting. Nevertheless, after we make our assumptions we still need to ascertain what was actually meant. Neither of us knows, so I would suggest that you not in a position to ridicule me about my assumptions. And because the Commission seems to have a lot of power, why should we not be concerned about potential misuses of that power?

To those driving cell-phone users that fear that this is the end of life as they know it — life will go on. Your phone is not being taken away from you, but instead you are being told that the safety of others is a higher priority to our community than that call of yours that you feel can’t wait until you are not driving.

Well, actually, I would say that what we are being told is that the Commissioners can force us to do whatever they want, without any stated statistical justification as to how much risk there is. It isn’t specifically about cell phones, it is about the appropriate use of government power.

Yes, life will go on. This is irrelevant. Life goes on with anyone in any situation, no matter how oppressive the legal environment.

I applaud the commission for joining many other communities and states by taking this step toward making our community safer.

Evidence, please. How much safer? How many injuries will it prevent? These facts have yet to be disclosed, so we don't know if the community is safer now, let alone by how much.

Black dogs and cats: the new bigotry

From the Bozeman Chronicle:

Black Market Pets

Stafford shelter offers discount on adoption of black dogs, cats

Every business seems to be offering special deals to get in on the opening weekend of the holiday shopping season.

Even the animal shelter.

Stafford Animal Shelter in Livingston offered to take 75 percent off the adoption fee of any predominantly black animal this weekend in an attempt to help those less popularly hued cats and dogs find a home.

“We do have some bigotry when it comes to black animals. They go a lot slower,” said shelter director Vicki Blakeman. “I don’t know why.”

The fact that black cats and dogs tend to stay in shelters longer than other-colored animals is a well-known fact throughout the animal shelter industry, she said.

Can you imagine? People who don't choose black dogs and cats are BIGOTS! Racists! Prejudiced!

This is the nonsense that passes as rational thought in some circles. Apparently, people exercising choice for whatever reasons, based on whatever preferences, are nothing more than haters. KKK members. Nazis.

The Left's obsession with color as a measure of diversity and tolerance, while simultaneously disparaging intellectual diversity, has now been extended to our choice of pet color. So now I wonder, what other things might be indicators of bigotry. Would eating chocolate ice cream be an indicator of tolerance? Owning a black car? Wearing a black shirt?

I guess I'm not a bigot, because I own a black dog. Wait a minute. I own it? That's slavery!

Our Identity - Neil Anderson

I have seen some criticism of Neil Anderson, mostly centering around the idea of whether or not we continue to be sinners, even after being saved. We know that the Kingdom of God is our new reality, yet we still live in the world. It is God who tells us who we are, and Scripture is full of identity verses.

The problem is that the Western intellectual discipline tends to be binary, that is, either/or. Much about God and His Kingdom cannot be dealt with on a binary basis, so it is no surprise that there is tension regarding the nature of sin. I suggest that there is no requirement that we reconcile the two natures.

In any event, we have to deal with the truth of these many biblical statements about who we are. Our identity is now in Christ, which makes each of these statements a description of how God sees us. It is for us to agree with God, it is our choice and our obligation:

1) Romans 8:5: "Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires."

2) Colossians 3:1-2: "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

----------------------------------------

Who Am I ?

(Taken from Neil T. Anderson's book, Victory Over the Darkness Pg. 45-47 and 57-69, Regal Books, 1990)

I am the salt of the earth (Matt.5:13)

I am the light of the world (Matt.5:14)

I am a child of God (John 1:12)

I am a part of the true vine, a channel of Christ's life (John 15:1,5)

I am Christ's friend (John 15:15)

I am chosen and appointed by Christ to bear His fruit (John 15:16)

I am a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I am enslaved to God (Romans 6:22)

I am a son of God; God is spiritually my Father (Romans 8:14,15; Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

I am a joint heir with Christ, sharing His inheritance with Him (Romans 8:17)

I am a temple a dwelling place of God. His Spirit and His life dwells in me (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19)

I am united to the Lord and am one Spirit with Him (1 Cor.6:17)

I am a member of Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph.5:30)

I am a new creature (2 Cor. 5: 17)

I am reconciled to God and am a minister of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 18,19)

I am a son of God and one in Christ ( Gal. 3: 26,28)

I am an heir of God since I am a son of God (Gal. 4: 6,7)

I am a saint ( Eph. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2)

I am God's workmanship-His handiwork-born anew in Christ to do His work (Eph. 2:10)

I am a fellow citizen with the rest of God's family ( Eph.2:19)

I am a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; 4:1)

I am righteous and holy (Eph.4:24)

I am a citizen of heaven, seated in heaven right now (Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:6)

I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:4)

I am an expression of the life of Christ because He is my life (Col.3:4)

I am chosen of God, holy and dearly loved (Col.3:12; 1 Thess.1:4)

I am a son of light and not of darkness (1 Thess. 5:5)

I am a holy partaker of a heavenly calling (Heb.3:1)

I am a partaker of Christ; I share in His life (Heb. 3:14)

I am one of God's living stones, being built up in Christ as s spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5)

I am a member of a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of God's own possession (1Peter 2:9,10)

I am an alien and stranger to this world in which I temporarily live (1 Peter 2:11)

I am a enemy of the devil (1 Peter 5:8)

I am a child of God and I will resemble Christ when He returns (1 John 3: 1,2)

I am born of God, and the evil one - the devil - cannot touch me (1 John 5:18)

I am not the Great I AM, (Exodus 3:14; John 8:24,28,58) But by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor.15:10)

I have been justified- completely forgiven and made righteous (Romans 5:1)

I died with Christ and died to the power of sin’s rule over my life (Romans 6:1-6)

I am free forever from condemnation (Romans 8:1)

I have been placed into Christ by God’s doing (1 Corinthians 1:30)

I have received the Spirit of God into my life that I might know the things freely given to me by God (! Corinthians 2:12)

I have been given the mind of Christ (! Corinthians 2:16)

I have bought with a price; I am not my own; I belong to God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

I have been established, anointed and sealed by God in Christ, and I have been given the Holy

Spirit as a pledge guaranteeing our inheritance to come (II Corinthians 1:21, Ephesians 1:13-14)

Since I have died, I no longer live for myself, but for Christ (II Corinthians 5:14-15)

I have been made righteous (II Corinthians 5:21)

I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. The life I am now living is Christ’s life (Galatians 2:20)

I have been blessed with every spiritual blessing (Ephesians 1:3)

I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and am without blame before him (Ephesians 1:4)

I was predestined - determined by God - to be adopted as God’s son (Ephesians 1:5)

I have been redeemed, forgiven, and I am a recipient of His lavish grace. I have been made alive together with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

I have been raised up and seated with Christ in heaven (Ephesians 2:6)

I have direct access through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18)

I may approach God with boldness, freedom and confidence (Ephesians 3:12)

I have been rescued from the domain of Satan’s rule and transferred to the kingdom of Christ (Colossians 1:13)

I have been redeemed and forgiven of all my sins. The debt against me has been canceled (Colossians 1:14)

Christ Himself is in me (Colossians 1:27)

I am firmly rooted in Christ and am now being built in Him (Colossians 2:7)

I have been spiritually circumcised. My old, unregenerate nature has been removed. (Colossians 2:11)

I have been made complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10)

I have been buried, raised and made alive with Christ (Colossians 2:12-13)

I died with Christ and I have been raised up with Christ. My life is now hidden with Christ in God. Christ is now my life (Colossians 3:1-4)

I have been given a spirit of power, love and self-discipline (II Timothy 1:7)

I have been saved and set apart according to God’s doing (II Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5)

Because I am sanctified and am one with the sanctifier, He is not ashamed to call me brother (Hebrews 2:11)

I have the right to come boldly before the throne of God to find mercy and grace in time of need (Hebrews 4:16)

I have been given exceedingly great and precious promises by God by which I am a partaker of God’s divine nature (II Peter 1:4)

Government workers' taxes paid by private sector - FB Conversation

I posted this tidbit: "$15T Federal Debt Equals $160,545 for Each Full-Time Private-Sector American."

S.B.: last time I looked, I, along with my fellow public sector employees, paid income taxes, federal excise taxes, state taxes, etc -- just like those private sector folks! So what does the pro-rationing to "per private sector American" accomplish?

Me: Because the private sector wage earners supply the funding for everything else, including the money that the government takes back from you after they pay you.

S.B.: but the debt is just as much mine, or your local cop, firefighter, or teacher (or insert your other favorite public sector leach on society here) as it is any of those people's. And we contribute equally to paying it down.

Me: I would take issue with the assertion that it is anyone's direct responsibility. But granting you that, it still remains that every single dollar a public sector employee receives in wages and benefits came from the private sector. If we follow the money trail, the taxes you pay were sourced from someone else, placed in government coffers, and then issued to you only to be taken back by the government.

S.B.: and I don't get your point, Rich, if there is one. Clearly we have government for a purpose. Most would argue that government is merely ONE way that we collectively organize to do things that we cannot do individually -- whether that be a space program, fire protection, national defense, etc.

If your implication is that somehow, none of this provides any societal value, then I would say that there's really nothing to argue about -- I wouldn't be working for the gov't if I believed that -- just as I found it hard working for private sector companies that had no higher purpose than providing a return on investment to their shareholders. A position, incidentally, which I don't expect you to embrace.

I am proud of being on the government payroll; what I do has value and I make no apologies for it. I am a productive member of society and if you are implying that I am anything less because I chose a career of doing science in the public interest, then I don't know what to tell you.

Me: You seem to assume I'm making some sort of value judgment, either about you, or about federal workers in general. However, I have pointedly and specifically dealt with a particular economic reality of who pays for what.

I note that you have yet to address that single point, instead making an emotional appeal. It makes me wonder, do you have a rebuttal?

May I also point out that I have not brought up anything about the value of government. Nor have I discussed anything regarding the societal value of government work. Indeed, I have no intention of making a defense of things I did not write about.

So, if you want to actually discuss the crippling nature of the national debt, that would be refreshingly on topic.

Cell phone follies - making distraction illegal but changing nothing - editorial

The Chronicle reports that the Bozeman Commissioners passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Commissioner Carson Taylor was quoted, saying. "Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous." We do not know if he provided evidence for his statement, but my guess is that he did not.

Probably because there isn’t any. Statistically speaking, it is not dangerous. The article says that “…5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.” After a brief search I found that 18% were attributed to hand-held devices. That would be 985 deaths and 80,640 injuries nationwide.

From this we can calculate per capita deaths and injuries in Bozeman caused by drivers distracted by cell phones. The number of deaths per year is basically zero, and injuries, less than 10. In other words, the Commissioners solved a problem that statistically doesn’t exist.

Lacking actual danger to the populace, the Commission legislated against what might happen as a result of engaging in an activity that could be dangerous and might cause injury. Therefore, the law is predicated on the consequence of two, maybe three antecedents. This is akin to outlawing television because there is a boiling pot of food on the stove that could start a fire and kill everyone in the house.

But what is really unfortunate is that the Bozeman Municipal Code already covers the issue: “A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner...” (Section 36.03.260)

What, then, is the reason for the law? First, we can safely conclude that this is the pop culture issue de jour. Lacking statistical justification, the law is based on little more than emotion and anecdotes. Kinda like setting tax policy by what Warren Buffet says about his secretary. Second, the city will receive thousands of dollars of additional revenue.

So why the focus on cell phones? Why not some laws to prohibit having sex while driving, playing with your chimpanzee while driving, or listening to an Obama speech while driving? It is unknown why the Commission did not address these clearly dangerous activities.

The Commissioners, attentive to nothing more than feel-good politics, are nevertheless perfectly comfortable giving a pass to drivers breezing through stoplights and bicyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. Having spectacularly solved the Story Mansion situation, the transfer station problem, the parking crisis, the traffic camera question, and the impact fee issue, the Commission can carve yet another notch on the bedpost of nanny government. Well, maybe we’re not getting screwed, but it sure feels like it.

But it gets worse. Consider this troubling quote from the article: “Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.” Is anyone else bothered by the idea that we the people must be “educated” in order to ensure conformity? Who, exactly, is charged with taking us aside and educating us? And what does this education consist of?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m making too big a deal out of this; it’s just a little thing. But liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must notice when politicians, enamored of their ability to force people to do things, start passing behavior modification laws and then insist that people be indoctrinated to unblinkingly obey them.

Tyrants frequently think big and start small, and tyranny can manifest in degrees. A singular powerful dictator or overtly egregious actions are not necessary prerequisites. A bunch of small town commissioners legislating a small issue still qualifies, and still must be opposed.

These guys have too much power, and apparently, too much time on their hands.
---------------

Text of the article, posted here for fair use and discussion purposes:

Bozeman City Commission approves ban on hand-held cell phones while driving Story

The Bozeman City Commission voted 4-1 Monday night to adopt an ordinance banning the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones, laptop computers and GPS navigations systems while driving or bicycling.

"Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous," Commissioner Carson Taylor said.

"We're going to have to change the way that we do our business and the way that we communicate with others," Deputy Mayor Sean Becker said.

The commission will consider a second, final passage of the ordinance on Nov. 28. Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.

Mayor Jeff Krauss cast the lone vote "no."

"I'm voting ‘no' for the same reason I vote ‘yes' on things like individual rights," Krauss said.

Under the ordinance, if you're caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while behind the wheel, you could be pulled over and fined $100. Using a hands-free communications device such as Bluetooth, however, is allowed.

Commissioners on Monday night changed language in the ordinance to exempt drivers on Interstate 90, who may not even realize they're in the city of Bozeman. Plus, highway patrol officers monitoring highways don't enforce each individual city's laws.

Commissioners also edited a section to allow hands-free users to touch their Bluetooth, or other device, so they can answer calls without violating the law.

Bozeman's ordinance is similar to laws in Butte-Silver Bow, Billings, Whitefish and Helena. Missoula has a ban on texting while driving.

Nine states, Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from using hand-held cell phones, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. No state bans hands-free cell phone use for the general public. Some states ban all cell phone use by novice and school bus drivers.

Sixteen people spoke during the public comment portion of Monday night's commission meeting.

Ann Justin opposed the law.

"I find being with my daughter in the car more distracting than talking on my phone - we're arguing about something," Justin said. "How about if you've got two 5-year-olds in the backseat? ... How about political discussions? ... How about eating a hamburger? There are many things that are more distracting, I think, than talking on the phone. I'm capable of doing that."

Gary Vodehnal, vice chairman of the city's Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, said he recently witnessed a woman crash into another car while talking on her cell phone. She got out of her car, but stayed on the call until Vodehnal, who was bicycling behind her, approached her and suggested she call police.

"She finally said into her phone, ‘Mom, I'm going to have to call you back. I need to take care of something,'" Vodehnal said.

Passing a "distracted-driving" ordinance "will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in our community," he said.

In an email to commissioners Monday, Bozeman resident Kent Madin criticized commissioners for allowing hands-free devices and not banning cell phone use entirely. He said the issue isn't whether both the driver's hands are on the wheel, he said.

"If it was, one-armed people couldn't get driver's licenses, nor could people with arms in slings, etc.," Madin said. "All cell phone use should be banned because of the amount of attention bandwidth the call consumes."

According to the federal Department of Transportation, 5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.

Using electronic devices while driving is distracting, but it's difficult to track how often using such devices causes crashes.

Sixty-three percent of drivers under age 30 acknowledge using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel, according to the DOT. Thirty percent said they've sent text messages while driving.

Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychronicle.com

"God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes." An analysis

A FB friend posted this quote, attributed to David Wilkerson: "God uses people. God uses people to perform His work. He does not send angels. Angels weep over it, but God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes. He uses burdened broken-hearted weeping men and women."

I don't accept things as easily as I used to. This quote, while seemingly insightful, struck me as odd. The person who posted it was, I believe, using it to encourage believers to serve God. That is noble and good. There is no doubt that God's people are prone to inaction and antipathy.

But there is something wrong as we continue reading past the first sentence. wilkerson appears to be suggesting that God will only use His people, and then only His people who are weeping and brokenhearted. I certainly accept that God has a unique and powerful calling to His Church to be His body, to do the things He has called us to, and to make a difference in this world. He has anointed His people, He dwells within them, He speaks to them and through them. Quite right.

However, we also know that God uses the ungodly, He uses animals, He uses weather and nature, and He even uses dark forces to accomplish His will. He brings calamity and pours out blessing. All things are in His hand, and every knee will bow. God is not a victim of happenstance. He is certainly not powerless outside the realm of His people.

And yes, God uses His angels. They're all over the Bible, doing battle, functioning as messengers, ministering to God's people. They're quite specifically being used by God to accomplish His purpose. There are dozens of mentions of angels doing all sorts of things. The Bible even refers to heavenly hosts. The term "hosts" translates as "armies." This begs the question, why would God have armies of angels, if they don't execute His purposes?

We now see that this is a bit more complicated. So what is Wilkerson really talking about? I searched around to find the context of the quote. Happily, I found the entire sermon posted here. The topic of Wilkerson's sermon is the backslidden Church, the Church that has compromised, that tolerates sin in its midst and accepts false teaching. Specifically, Wilkerson names the prosperity doctrine. Wilkerson's sermon has nothing at all to do with Christian service! It has everything to do with those who will take up the call to stand for Truth and Righteousness, those who will not tolerate false teaching, those who will weep over the sins of the Church and intercede for it.

And now we understand what Wilkerson is speaking about. He is not saying that only God's people are used by Him. Wilkerson is calling the Church to do its specific job. Only the people of God can deal with the problems in the Church. They are called to do this. The angels aren't.

I respond to some comments

These comments appeared on the Bozeman Chronicle website in answer to my recent column. I do want to dissect them a bit because of their astonishing fecklessness.

First, magicdragon: "I want him to post his tax forms so we all can see how much he writes off. When I was self employed, I was able to write off thousands that a man working for someone else could not. Does Rich pay a higher percent than his receptionist?"

This is the classic progressive mindset. This writer seems to think he is entitled to see my private financial records, apparently to determine if I pay enough taxes. So I'll make him a deal. If magicdragon would publish all the details of his sex life so that we can determine the appropriateness of his behavior and then penalize him for any, shall we say, inadequacies, I then would be happy to publish my tax records. In other words, it's none of his damn business.

If magicdragon was able to pay lower taxes as a result of being self-employed, he was guilty of tax evasion. A business owner pays both the employer and employee portions of Social Security on himself, rent, phone, postage, utilities, employee salaries and benefits, buys equipment, and of course, pays a plethora of taxes. If there is any money left, then the owner gets a paycheck.

Next, Sonechka: "According to manta.com: '[Rich's company] is a private company which is listed under insurance. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of 1 to 4.' You can afford your taxes, Rich."

So this means, I assume, that the only relevant factor regarding taxes is affordability? This would mean that taxes can never be too high, unfair, illegal, or punitive if the target has the ability to pay them. It also suggests that government ought to have to power to determine who has too much money and take it from them.

Implicit in this is the idea that your wealth belongs to the government, who "kindly" allows you to keep some for yourself. However, the principle of private property is a founding concept of our country, an idea which separates us from the monarchy, where the people are subjects or serfs, and the King owns all property. The Constitution notes that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property.

My response to Christine Montano

The thing I noticed first about Christine's letter to the editor is the total absence of name-calling. This alone makes it a noteworthy letter, since she makes her points with the substance of her arguments, not on pejorative language. Well done on that level, Christine.

However, the substance of her arguments must be based on the substance of my column. Does she refute things I actually addressed? And does she accurately represent them? Well, no. It seems that these simple criteria would not be unreasonable to expect of an English teacher at Bozeman High School.

Christine writes: "Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world." Unfortunately for her, I made no statement regarding "total self-reliance." The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that total self reliance is desirable, even if it were possible. True, there are some who make an effort to live "off the grid," but even they will rely on others at times. Nevertheless, there is little advantage in discussing a position that is not mine.

Christine continues: "Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society." So, Christine did not get the idea of "total self-reliance" from my column, she got it from Bill Anderson: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-myth-of-self-reliance/

I note for the record that Mr. Anderson never used the word "libertarian." His article references a magazine article, which he describes as advocating self sufficiency. He quotes a paragraph from it to establish his thesis that total self-reliance is not possible: "Before 1776 we were less than free as a country, but Americans were independent in a personal sense. Most people then built their own homes, grew their own food, made their furniture and clothes, and even bred their own horses for transportation. True, life was much harder than now. But the support systems were within reach of almost everyone, and were subject to individual control. People ‘paid’ for much of what they used with their own effort. Almost all the raw materials were renewable. Our material culture was sustainable, and America could be cut off from the rest of the world without the creation of much suffering or hardship... What can be done about our growing dependence in these modern times?"

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but there doesn't appear to be any advocacy of "total self-reliance" contained in the paragraph he quoted. Quite the contrary, this statement, "...but the support systems were within reach of almost everyone..." suggests just the opposite, that people did depend on each other. Hmm, maybe it's just me.

Beyond that, libertarians do not advocate total self-reliance. Perhaps a small few of them do, but it certainly is not a defining tenet of libertarianism. Libertarians do want to bring government down to its constitutional limits, they do want government out of their pockets and personal lives, and they do believe that they are better equipped to make decisions about their own lives. But libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists (except isolation from undue government interference).

Let's continue on to Christine's next point: "What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests?" Actually, I did not suggest that we should have the ability to opt out. The point I made is that progressives are in favor of certain targeted taxes, like impact fees, but opposed to the idea of allowing other targeted taxes, based on nothing but political preferences. They like impact fees because these taxes target a villan, and also because they don't have to pay them. Conversely, they like general taxes like property taxes because property taxes support public schools, and they like public schools.

She asks, "What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for 'wonderful creations,' the office buildings Rich celebrates?" Well, people chop down trees all the time for a variety of reasons. But I did not advocate cutting down trees to build condos. All I did was question the tree maintenance tax, which I suppose is sufficent to make me anti-tree.

She continues: "What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of 'beautiful, useful' office condominiums?" So now I want ALL the trees cut down and office condos built everywhere! Do you see how this is escalating from my simple questioning of a tax? But let's run with the idea. Assume the Gallatin Valley was covered with forests. Eeevil capitalist developers came in and cut down a bunch of trees and built ugly office condos. Did the quality of life change? Yes, upwards. The reason those offices were built is because businesses need a place to operate from, and those businesses sell products and employ people and allow a better quality of life.

Trees, on the other hand, employ no one. They just sit there looking pretty. I would certainly agree that we need pretty things to look at to soften the hardscape, but I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive. In any event, since I am not anti-tree or pro-condo, it makes little sense to discuss the point any more.

Christine then pursues another non-sequitur: "What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding?" Well, my column made no statement about the level of funding for public schools. We do know, however, that the worst schools in the country (largely located in progressive strongholds like Detroit and D.C.) are among the highest funded. So, there is no real "...correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility..." with school funding.

Once again, since I questioned a tax, in this case property taxes, it apparently makes me anti-education. This is a typical M.O. of the political left. Opposing or criticizing a tax or a government program is synonymous with opposing the goal of the tax or program. Therefore, suggesting tax reform is the same as being anti-education, hating blacks, tossing the poor out into the streets, starving our seniors, and misogyny.

It seems pretty obvious that she is drawing conclusions based on suppositions that are derived from the progressive template. It's not that I think she's dishonest, I think she's reflexively responding based on where she is immersed. She assumes they're true because she surrounds herself with like-minded people, and as a result generally restricts her exposure to contrary ideas. I believe she has rarely had a sit down with someone who has a different political point of view, or if she has, she doesn't like it when it happens.

I must say, however, I am glad that she wrote. Responding to something other than mindless invective was a pleasure for me. She did demonstrate that it is possible to engage in civil dialogue. I hope a few progressives take the hint.

Christine Montano writes a response to my editorial

I'll write a response later.

On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.

Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.

What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?

On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.

Proud to be a liberal - FB conversation

S.B. posted this:

I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!



Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/

Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.

S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?

Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.

S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?

S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.

Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.

You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.

Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.

S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.

But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.

And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.

K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.

Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?

R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.

R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.

ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.

And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.

V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much

I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".

R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Me: ‎"Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.

The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.

I.S.: Turn off Fox.

Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.

The goals of Occupy

I don't remember where I got this list.

Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.

1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.