Why do we allow this to happen?

I wanted to share this chart with you. It is from Moveon.org, so expect some bias. However, It is important to note that in this debt deal, if you can call it that as it does nothing to tackle long term deficit problems, there is a disproportionate burden on the least wealthy. Republicans ensured that there were no changed to the current system of protections for the wealthy ("job-creators"). I want to quickly note that if you believe the "super" Congress is going to tackle the problem, the Republican faction will probably block and let it expire, at which point automatic cuts in domestic spending follow.

http://front.moveon.org/how-almost-everyone-just-got-screwed-in-one-chart/

On Taxing the Rich

I just wanted to get some facts on here about the real tax burden on the top one percent of Americans. The reason for this is that in principles I am for a balanced approach when it comes to deficit reductions that includes comprehensive and real cuts in entitlement programs and other domestic programs, but also an increase in revenue in the form of taxes, both through the closing of loopholes and the raising of taxes on the top one percent.

I am deeply disappointed that the debt negotiations that occurred in the past few days gave the fringe elements of the Republican Party everything they wanted, including attention to their ludicrous demand for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The most glaring omission was new revenue, with the White House putting on a shameful display last Sunday on both Meet the Press and This Week, when Senior Advisor David Plouffe failed to directly address questions from both shows regarding the lack of revenue increases in the budget deal.

This Week interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/interview-david-plouffe-14198499

Meet the Press interview:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/43961242#VpFlash

If this country wants to get the economy growing, we must abandon the rhetoric that giving tax breaks and lowering the taxes of the top one percent will drive investment and economic growth. It is much more beneficial to spur small businesses and higher education through tax breaks to parents and small businesses. These are the places where the money will be spent and put into circulation the fastest, and have any stimulus shielded from the whims of finance markets.
The top one percent of Americans earn 16.8 percent of all income in the country, and pay about 25.6 of all federal taxes. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2995&DocTypeID=2) Though this may sound unfair at first glance, it is taking place in an environment where income inequality is increasing at such a fast pace that  it is no longer sensible to tax the wealthy at such a low rate, specially in a time of crisis where the poor and the elderly are being asked to make sacrifices through reductions in their state-provided benefits.

Ours is a society in which we are all in it together. I reject the Ayn Rand way of thinking and anything that seeks to defend the "right" of someone to get wealthy and ignore the problems plaguing the society around them. Giving money to the wealthy few may create a few white collar jobs, but that is not what this country needs right now, and it is not what American voters are looking for when they turn to the government for help.  Fair in this case is not the same as equal. The rich are not equal to the poor, so it is unreasonably to claim that the country should implement equal tax burden. It is so unreasonable, I cannot help but think it a crude tongue-in-cheek joke. A lady in Lynbrook wrote in the Metro news paper last week, in the opinions section, asking when we will be satisfied taxing the rich. I wish to directly answer her question. I am not an egalitarian and I firmly believe that an innovative and wise person who earns their wealth is certainly entitled to enjoy a higher standard of living, but we will stop taxing the rich once the rich, specially the super rich in the top one percent, stop manipulating the political system to get away with explosive gains at no cost, and once the super rich learn that they live in a society that they two are responsible for.

I ask you, reader, do you believe that the super wealthy have a responsibility to the society they live in? That in a time of crisis they too must shoulder a burden and take on that higher tax on corporate jets and luxury items? Or do you believe that if as a society we ask that, that Atlas will Shrug?

Here is an interesting PolitiFact fact check on Secretary Geithner that I think you should read:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/12/timothy-geithner/geithner-says-top-1-percent-have-tax-rate-low-20s/

One Kid to Rule them All

Hello reader. I was recently made aware of something and found myself horrified that this is not more present as an issue. Everyone has heard of China's one-child policy, which is intended to slow urban population growth by restricting married urban couples from having more than one child. The policy is enforced by the threat of fines, which scale up based on the family income.

The Economist published this article in their most current issue, presenting a new problem:

http://www.economist.com/node/18988496?story_id=18988496&CFID=167853965&CFTOKEN=39790951

How this is not the most pressing issue on the minds of those who champion human rights is beyond me. Or, if it is, then what is beyond me is how it is that we as a global community are just finding out. I am filled with questions. What is being done? Who is being held accountable? And how long will this be allowed to continue?

I would like to say a few words to explain my view on this subject. The Committee on the One-Child Policy has said that only 36% of the population is subject to the law's restrictions. However I want to bring up some concerns that immediately occur to me, and I invite you, dear reader, to weigh in, perhaps with your own experiences ad anecdotes, as I seek to learn more on this topic.

First is the logic behind the policy. Economically speaking, the Malthusian view of the world as having limited resources increasing linearly as population increases exponentially simply is not true thanks to technological development. This means that as far as I can tell it is doubtful that the kinds of famines that plagued the country in previous years should necessarily happen again if the policy was repealed, given China's growth both economically and technologically.
There is an important economic consequence of such a policy as well. As the population ages, only children will be forced to provide care, directly or indirectly, to both their parents, and to any grandparents. Even with the exception implemented in 2009 that allows parents to have two children if they were only children themselves, it will still place an unnecessary burden on the older generations who will be forced to depend on retirement funding or charity, in an economic environment that could have supported a larger young labor force.
Because boys tend to be more economically productive than girls when it comes to primary financial support, there is a warped incentive to have a boy as the only child in the family. The State Population and Family Planning Commission estimates that there will be 30 million more young men than girls by 2020. What is most alarming to me is that the one-child policy incentivizes sex-selective abortions, under-reporting of female births, and even infanticide, despite these practices being illegal.

I am sure that you can imagine other potential consequences of having a growing urban population with an aggravated gender disparity being propagated by such a policy. I want to mention briefly the human rights aspect. I believe that no matter the place, a government has a responsibility to its people. That responsibility is to maintain a functional state to procure the safety of its people and to enable these same people to exercise their freedom. This policy is an abomination for restricting the rights of these people to determine what is their own social and economic best interest in considering family size. Furthermore, a government that takes children away and sells them to foreigners for money is something that is not only wrong, it is inhuman. If growing populations and resource constraints are really such a problem for China today, I believe the government has a duty to itself and to its people to come up with another solution. Under no circumstances should a person's dignity be violated, specially not a newborn child. The very idea of someone coming in and separating a mother from her second, third, or fourth child should be appalling to all of us. I am sure that foreign couples coming to adopt in China would be horrified is they learned of the way these children ended up at the orphanages.

The United Nations Population Fund is responsible for part of the funding for this program, and the government of the United States has refused to contribute to it because of this. President Obama resumed contributions in 2009 with the admirable goal of contributing to the reduction of poverty, the improvement of health for women and children, and the promotion of family planning. However it is my view that UNFPA should cease its support for this abhorrent policy immediately. The richest country in the world should not be forced to help those in need while supporting such a violation of major human rights.

I would also like to see more outcry, specially given what is going on now, from international organizations and specially religious groups. Where is the Pope? What does he, as the leader of the Christian faith, have to say about this practice, which so clearly opposes God? Communities across the world, religious and otherwise, should join hands in shining a light unto this injustice, and making sure that it ends soon.

Let me know what you think by commenting below, and if you have been to China or are Chinese yourself, I'd really appreciate your perspective on this issue. Thank you.

The Debt Crisis as I see it

I was recently reading the Economist when President Obama came on to talk about the debt ceiling talks, more or less warning that Republicans should stop playing a game with the national debt issue and support attempts at more long terms solution to the fiscal crisis. This was the preferred alternative over raising the debt ceiling now, only to bring up the same unresolved issue again in six months.

I usually do not like to point fingers at incompetency as anything exceptional, since I see incompetency and corruption everywhere, but on this issue I feel compelled. The Economist ran a story two weeks ago when talks were just beginning which openly blamed the Republican party for the problem: "Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Far%2Fshameonthem

I want to make clear that I am not completely behind the President either. I think Speaker Boehner's claims that the White House has not made credible plans to tackle entitlement reform and spending cuts are credible. The reason I believe that the Republicans are so terribly misguided is two-fold. The first is the extremely misguided belief that a plan must not include any tax increases beyond closing tax loopholes, which the White House cleverly calls a "balanced" approach with cuts and "revenues." The second I believe is simple ignorance. Ignorance of the severity of the situation, ignorance of economic principles, and simple ignorance of what it is they were sent there for. Democrat or Republican, voters want competency above all things. That is why Democrats voted for Obama in 2008, that is why Republicans gave that party the House of Representatives in 2010. Competence is why I marched to the Rally to Restore Sanity. Unfortunately I see a lot of talking and not a lot of doing coming from leaders in both parties. I'd like to take the time now to thank the President for at least engaging the opposite party and expressing a willingness to listen to their concerns and give them concessions for the sake of reaching some kind of agreement.

The President has been criticized for including cuts to the Defense Department as part of the spending cuts. I think it is only logical that in this time of fiscal crisis, with two wars winding down, it makes sense to consider spending cuts in the Defense Department budget.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/us-defense-spending-the-mismatch-between-plans-and-resources

I wanted to bring this up to put it all into perspective. With the events in Norway, and the ever-present threat of terrorism in our minds, it is important for me that the country is able and ready to defend itself, however nothing can be off the table, and if the situation calls for a cut to the Defense budget then I think it a wise thing to do. Dogma at this point, either on Defense spending or on cuts-only plans, is simply foolish.

I believe that the White House should make clear and credible plans for tackling entitlement spending and cuts going forward. If the Democratic party is to emerge from this battle with any semblance of face it must show that willingness to take on those issues, to silence the extremes of its caucus and really put this on the table.

Right now I am disappointed with Congress. More than I have ever been, specially with certain members of Congress going so far as to demonstrate their insanity by denying the threat posed to our economy from a default. I await to see what happens August 2nd, and whether our government will really step up. At this point any hope that either party will emerge as competent is gone. This is not a partisan issue, and it should never have been a partisan issue. I just want results.

Let me know what you think about this, reader. I am curious what you think, and your perspective on the debt-crisis. Do you find it as distracting as I do? With Congress spending so much time running around on this issue, other important legislation (read: immigration reform) is going no where. Thank you for reading, until next time.

Is it possible to experience an evil that teaches us nothing?

Welcome reader.
There is an expression in Spanish that says "no hay mal que por bien no venga." It translates roughly to "there is no evil that comes without good." The idea is that even when things happen that may appear bad or evil to us, there is a lesson to be learned or unforeseen consequences that reveal a kind of silver lining.

This expression made me think about what I believe about the nature of good and evil and more importantly how they relate to each other. I profess I am coming from the Christian tradition when I think about this particular issue. With that in mind, as a saying it appears to hold true. Even the most tragic and horrible events that have affected mankind did in fact have consequences and effects that could be seen as benefits. This is not to say that these benefits were on par or outweighed the harm, only that there is indeed a silver lining. To take a mundane example, let's say that you are in a monogamous relationship and your partner cheats on you. Most people would describe that as an evil act that ought not to happen, but even this act of singular selfishness can have a silver lining. It gives you new insight into who that person is and into the health of your relationship, insight that would have been difficult otherwise. That insight is new knowledge that can help you make informed decisions in the future, and thus benefit, in this case by leaving your partner and finding someone who can respect you.

I am sure that you, dear reader, can come up with dozens if not hundreds of similar examples. I am hunting a more elusive scenario, where a tragedy happens with no lesson, no good consequence, no silver lining. This thought experiment might be controversial, trying to imagine a possible good from the worst tragedies mankind has seen. To pick an extreme example, even the Rwanda genocide, which is safe to say was a great evil to befall that country, has some good come of it, even if the form of forgiveness and understanding on the part of some of the victims in the years after. There are many heart-warming stories of human kindness that come out of even this tragedy, not to mention stories of compassion and bravery during it.

The only thing I could think of as being thoroughly evil, without any seed of goodness, had to be the hidden act. Evil that is hidden denies everyone else the opportunity to learn, grow, and move on. Something like treachery that goes undiscovered, born of a selfish and self-serving will, must be the kind of evil that befalls a victim without any silver lining.

This may not seem satisfactory to you, reader, because you may pause to note that in this example the victim may not realize that an evil has been inflicted. And you would be correct. Humanity has an amazing capacity to see evil and selfishness everywhere, and an equally powerful capacity to see goodness when they care to look. But denying a victim even knowledge of a sin inflicted upon them gives them no chance to learn from it, to work through it, to truly move on.

There are those who believe that good cannot exist without evil and that evil cannot exist without good. I think that for the most part this is true. Apart from the consequences of actions, which is what I have been focusing on in this post, there is also great complexity within people themselves, even those who could be appropriately described as evil. That however is a discussion for a different day.

Please let me know what you think in the comments below. Do you think there can be an evil that is only harmful? A tragedy with no silver lining? Why or why not?

The Journey of a Thousand Miles...

Welcome.

Today I started this blog with one purpose, to explain the concerns most present on my mind and why it is that I believe what I believe. I invite you and anyone who would be interested to drop by and engage me, to argue, to disagree, and possibly to learn from each other while treating one another with dignity and respect. I will keep this introduction brief, so thank you for reading and I hope you return to read my first real post.