Life's little constants

Somebody needs to explain to me why there is such a stigma attached to taxes in this country. Tax policy has become a scare tactic and I’m tired of it.

Taxes are not stealing for Christ’s sake. Let’s just drop the hyperbole. The purpose of tax money is to buy the things individuals cannot afford or would not buy on their own- things like, oh I don’t know, roads? Water treatment facilities? Schools? Bridges? Public health programs? Any of these sound familiar? Without taxes, none of those would exist and public facilities would be even more dismal than they are. In fact, there would be no public facilities because if they were built privately you’d get charged to use them.

I'm tired of the argument "America has the highest business tax rates in the world". On paper, sure, we're at 35%. But that's not the important number. It's what people ACTUALLY PAY that's important. In that respect, we're among the lowest in the world.
Several recent reports highlight that most of the largest companies in the U.S. pay LESS THAN 5%. So in reality, we have one of the lowest rates. That makes this a completely bullshit argument and anyone proffering it as a reason for America's non-competitiveness doesn't have a grounding in reality.

The use of taxes as a political tool is beyond retarded. We’ve created a situation where Americans are so anti-tax that the things that made this country great (the highway system, modern electric grids, access to clean water) are falling apart. We like to think we can jump to the front without paying for it. And we’re about to face some hard realities for the last few decades of free-wheeling spending, massive corporate and upper-income tax cuts, and utter failure to invest in our declining infrastructure.

Think of it like this- every day, every single person benefits from public things. Whether it’s education, crime prevention, fire fighting services, or military protection, we all benefit. So we should all pay. Period. And we should pay in proportion to how we have benefited. The rich have profited from the labor of Americans, the infrastructure of America, the education provided to Americans, and the regulatory structures of America. Therefore they should put some of their profits back into America for the next generation and to just show some fucking appreciation. Without those services and labor, they would have nothing.

I’m not opposed to letting people keep what they earn. I think individuals make better choices than government. But they will never make choices that are in the interest of the common good. They will make the best decision for them. Therefore, we need a system that everyone who can afford to pays into that WILL (theoretically) do things that are in the common interest. Am I tired of my tax money going to things I don’t believe in? Sure I am. We all are. We’re the ones paying for these wars, not the people at the top of the ladder. But without a military, we wouldn’t have the country we do have. We have to realize the importance of things we may not like or we’re just as bad as the people that don’t want to believe we really have a low corporate tax rate. Some people like art, some like weapons, and some like free travel on highways. Sometimes you have to put up with things you don’t like to get benefits that you do. (I’m not justifying spending money on pointless wars, just that we have to live with trade-offs in how public money is spent, as we must in a pluralistic government).

I hate this anti-tax sentiment that closely follows the over-consumption sentiment we have. You can’t run trillion dollar military exercises, $600 billion deficits, and address the roots of social problems without tax money. It just doesn’t work in the long term.

So let’s stop complaining about taxes and instead hold the leadership accountable for how that money is spent. We need more funds for education, health care, infrastructure, environmental protection and remediation, and social programs that really benefit those stuck in poverty (which is at least 10% of the population though you wouldn’t know it from news reports). Taxes should be an investment in our communities, our culture, and our future. They should not be a political argument. They should be a source of pride that we are willing to invest in ourselves and help those that do not have the means to help themselves.

And now for something completey different

A man with a fish playing a cello.

HAHA...Monty Python!

I've been on the rag a lot on this blog about ridiculous political happenings. And it could go on forever. So it's time to turn to another of my favorite hobbies- economics. Unless you live in China or possibly in a shanty-town, you'll have heard that CEO pay has increased yet again even while the economy tanks and the average American struggles to pay house notes, grocery bills, and energy bills. And yet, we accept this as right. I'm not saying these people don't deserve a hefty pay check. They are under immense stress and are expected to be omniscient and omnipotent. If that doesn't halt the old ticker I don't know what will. But let's think a little more about these compensation packages.

Point 1: Where is the money coming from? Even as people are laid off, unions are forced to accept pay cuts, and businesses are moving to hiring full time work without full time benefits, the CEOs of these same companies are raking in more wealth. So the money is coming to the CEOs by way of laying off the people at the bottom. Of course, if companies make more money, the CEO should get a cut. But when airlines, banks, retailers, and lenders are losing billions of dollars, CEOs should not be getting increases of millions.

Point 2: Who are businesses really looking out for? The answer is shareholders. Not the employees, not the employee families, not the ethics of capitalism, and certainly not the greater good. This is reaffirmed in every newspaper article, economic magazine, and tv news report. It's always about SHAREHOLDERS. No one gives two farts about the employees that make sure the company stays profitable. The secretaries are told "we can't give raises this year because business is down" even while the CEO gets a fat bonus. Companies will do anything to stay profitable and retain shareholders but will do little to help employees or see that employee wages reflect the companies finances. I have yet to meet anyone working for a corporation that said "we increased profits by 10% this year, so everyone got a 2% salary increase". And I've asked a lot of them. Who are the shareholders they're looking out for? People with enough wealth to invest. So we see the wealthy helping the wealthy and leaving the average worker with minimum wage, bad benefits, and an ass sore from the pounding.

Point 3: It's all about short term gain. High employee turnover, cutting important and necessary positions (secretarial, janitorial, etc.), and ousting older and experienced employees to avoid paying retirement benefits. These are signs of business emphasizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term market position, preparedness, and common sense. This is why calling a company is usually pointless- the employee turnover is so high that no one has time to learn the business and intelligently answer questions. It's about "returning to profitability" rather than taking calculated losses to be in a better position later.

Point 4: CEOs that say "I don't get a paycheck" are liars. They may not get a direct payment, but receiving millions of dollars in stock, complete health packages, a fat pension plan, massive death benefits, and payouts for early ousting (such as not doing a good job and getting paid to leave before your contract is up) are the same as a paycheck. The average worker does not have access to these benefits even though they are working hard, sometimes putting in more hours than the leadership. So stop the baloney. It's the just a cover and I'm not buying it.

Point 5: CEO pay should be tied to performance, just like everyone else. But even during years when markets are terrible or the company makes bad decisions, CEO pay keeps climbing. Let's be fair- if you give someone $10 million in stock as payment, even if they trash the company and cut its share price in half, they still walk away with $5 million and have done nothing but hurt the company, its employees, and the shareholders. And the company is out $5 million that could be used to increase business.

In Brandonland it works like this. CEOs will be paid a salary. They will get no special benefits. They will work hard like the rest of the employees. They will have to invest out of their own pocket instead of being handed stock in addition to their paychecks. They will not have entitlement to special privileges like personal use of company transport. They will get bonuses only if the company does well and only if the employees receive a cut of the profits. The CEO will live with the same benefits package as everyone else. This will accomplish several things. The CEO will become an employee subject to the same rules as the lower ranking employees, the millions of dollars saved in perquisites can be used to grow the business or to provide better salaries and benefits to all employees, those at the top will make more money than those below but will have to build their own wealth and act like all others in the marketplace (rather than being given a head start with options, portfolios, and grants), and the growing disparity between employee and CEO salary will be dramatically reduced since all employees will share in the company growth rather than only those at the top.

We can have a capitalist market, economic expansion, and a high standard of living without the stark disparities and inequalities that continue to get worse. Will there always be a difference? Yes. It's inherent in the current philosophy of capitalism. Based on education, training, experience, innate abilities, and work ethics, different people will be at different levels of an organization. And as you move up through the organization you will have more responsibilities and should be compensated accordingly. But you will also be held accountable for your performance, just like those at the bottom. There is no reason that the foundation workers of the business (those making minimum wage or a few bucks more an hour) should have salaries orders of magnitude below those at the top. There is no exact answer to how much more the top brass should make, but I think the average person would say that a $10,000,000 to $30,000 ratio is ludicrous. If my raises, bonuses, benefits, and salary are tied to the performance of the business, shouldn't the leadership be under the same constraints? All employees should share in the fortunes and failures of the business. That way, they all have an incentive to do the best work they can and they can have a career instead of just a job.

Sciencing in the blogopshere

If it was up to me, the word "blogosphere" would not be a word. But sciencing would be. How's that for trashing the language?

I've started a new blog: Ask a Scientician. Along with select colleagues, acquaintances, and cronies, I'll be answering general questions relating to science and how the world works. The site it an attempt to get people to ask the questions they have to a person who is actually in a position to answer them well and not their Uncle Joe who doesn't know astronomy from astrology. Questions like "why should I not cook re-frozen chicken?" or "what the hell is dark matter anyway?" are good targets, but feel free to ask anything. You can ask here or send them to the email addresses posted on Ask a Scientician. We'll also be posting tidbits that discuss and hopefully dispel some of the common myths surrounding climate change, evolution, stem cells, and other controversial topics.

It's kind of like Mythbusters, but without the supreme hotness of Kari. And instead of doing the experiments, we'll just be stealing answers other scientists have already found

You can't be wrong all of the time

As a rule, I tend to put Arlen Specter in the "don't touch" pile with Orrin Hatch and Mike Huckabee. But we're finally on the same page. At the ACLU convention this week, Specter had the testicular fortitude to denounce the executive practice of demanding confidential news sources and the judicial beginnings of upholding these demands. In case you don't know, confidential sources are one of the hallmarks of a free press, since it means people inside organizations can get information out without being retaliated against. (Don't tell me whistle-blower acts are effective either- they're too new and those people can still be targeted, just with more discretion). Without them, we may never have known about Watergate, the Iran-Contra boondoggle, the Abu-Ghraib catastrophe, or any number of secret happenings that affect the public.

Arlen actually said that rather than the telecoms standing trial for illegal wire-tapping, the federal government should. I couldn't agree more. To be fair, they should both be held accountable. The "following orders" argument doesn't fly with me. The telcos were aware what they were doing was wrong. They should have had the chutzpah to stand up and make it public instead of caving in to unreasonable demands. It's too little too late for a group of people that should have come clean sooner (say when it happened rather than professing to clean up during an election year) but at least some of the players are willing to stand up for keeping a relatively free press and to say that what happened was wrong. Now we just have to wait and see if all we get are the usual condemnations with no substantial action or protections for those wronged.

Let's not ignore the fact that Arlen voted FOR the "surveillance reform" that allowed this to happen in the first place. He conveniently forgot to mention this at the convention. He also didn't mention that he voted to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Hopefully he's realized that what he did was stupid, irresponsible, damaging to civil liberties, and blatantly unconstitutional. More likely, he's realized the wind is changing and he needs to sail with it. But (some) kudos to Arlen. And boo on warrant-less domestic spying. Now we just need a politician who's willing to shut down the improper use of NSLs (national security letters) and we'll be making some progress.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue...

Alright class. Today we have a guest speaker who will be filling in for me. So please give your attention to Sir Adam.

Why this article is bullshit:

1) The President makes $400,000 a year. He lives for free, get driven/flown for free everywhere he goes. We pay his energy bills. Meanwhile, he receives the best medical benefits available to modern medicine, for free, for the rest of his life. He does not feel our pain— he feels an approval rating so dismal that he makes Richard Nixon look like John Glenn. What I wouldn’t give for an Andrew Jackson right about now to step into office and start hitting people with his walking stick…

2) The chances of Washington finding a quick solution aren’t low because Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked—it’s low because there is no quick solution. Sorry, dear America, who always believes in quick fixes to complicated problems, but the facts are thus:
• they have most of the oil
• oil is a finite resource and will run out
• we need their oil
• they choose the price.

You can bitch and moan about greedy oil barons and sheikhs, but at the heart of it is simple economics. And considering that our nation prides itself on strong capitalist instincts, all the bitching we do is lip service because you can be sure of one thing: if we had all the oil, we would be doing the exact same thing that they are.

3) this quote: “And with the federal government now more than $9 trillion in debt, where would Congress find the money to pour into public transit and research into alternative fuels?”

Rather than bring up the estimated (roughly) two trillion dollar price-tag of the war in Iraq (that’s $2,000,000,000,000) and how much public transportation that could have purchased or debt that could have paid off, I’ll just throw up a quote in reference to the war:

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, 9/02

‘Nuff said.


The major problem here is that people, from the bottom to the top of our social pyramid, are looking for the quickest, most painless answer to the problem of rising oil costs. But the answer is not to cut federal taxes on gas for a while—that will lower prices about $.18 a gallon (roughly 4.5%), and in my neighborhood they’ve risen more than that over the past week. I would still be getting bent over at the pump, meanwhile our nation would be losing billions in revenue to build/maintain roads.

The answer is also not drilling in ANWAR— and I don’t take that stance for environmental reasons, I take it out of common sense. Yes, that might lower gas prices for a while, but we would suck every drop out of the ground in a few years and be right back in this boat. None of our fundamental beliefs or behaviors would change in the slightest if gas suddenly dropped to $2.90 a gallon. That’s like a junkie saying ‘I know I need to get clean—I’ll just rent a room in that crack house down the block and get right on it’.

These are band-aid solutions to a bullet wound. The wake-up call is here: the only way out of this mess is to not be dependent on oil and, like changing any dependency, it is going to hurt. It’s going to involve a complete reshifting of American perceptions. It’s going to involve replanning our urban/suburban centers from the ground up. It’s going to involve massive expenditures for reliable and affordable public transportation. It’s going to take huge investments in alternative fuels and huge leaps of faith in consumers to not keep purchasing Hummers.

And meanwhile, we are just going to have to bite the friggin’ bullet and pay our $4 for gas and be damn well pleased to do it—while we’re complaining about the new projected cost of our summer vacations, the price of grain (which has risen even faster than oil) is killing people across the globe by the tens of thousands.

Remeber kids: AA is for quitters. And nobody likes a quitter.

Every once in a while a really stupid question is posed as a major news headline. Usually it’s a question with significant social implications that gets boiled down to a few eight second sound bites that condense the concerned parties into one-dimensional caricatures. Today’s winner is “Should the drinking age be lowered?” What the hell kind of retarded question is this? Let’s just use some common sense and a few available statistics to reach a first order answer.

Exhibit A: You can buy cigarettes at 18, vote at 18, kill people in the armed forces at 17 (with parental consent), fuck at 16 (in most states), drive a multi-ton vehicle at 16, and get hitched at 15 (with consent). So explain to me the rationale for not making alcohol available until you’re 21.

Exhibit B: Over a decade of research shows that a large proportion of kids have their first alcohol experiences during high school and that a small but significant number have them during middle school. This absolutely does NOT mean to imply that it’s a “crisis” or a “problem”, just that it exists and is currently on the rise. So obviously the “wait until you’re 21” line is not working as planned.

Exhibit C: Much like absolute abstinence, the “all alcohol is bad until you’re 21” argument makes no logical sense. Teaching responsible alcohol use (like responsible condom use) empowers people to make better choices. The fact is, the majority of Americans (and I would say much of the world) consume alcohol. The majority of these people are NOT alcoholics. They are, within reason, responsible people that enjoy a drink now and then. Why do we not hold younger people to these more reasonable standards? Should there be consequences for abuse of alcohol and bad choices (e.g. driving while intoxicated)? Yes. But should we tell younger people that alcohol is evil when our society is saturated by it? Hell no. That’s just stupid. It only heightens their perception that we’re being hypocritical.

Exhibit D: Research is conflicting, but so far shows no conclusive evidence that alcoholism is significantly lower in the U.S. than in Europe even though the legal drinking age is higher. So this argument is void until there is some convincing proof.

Exhibit E: The costs of enforcement are incredible. Resources that could be used in other pursuits are tied up in man-power, equipment, time, and energy spent in the frantic effort to keep alcohol away from those deemed unworthy of its use. Much like the war on drugs, much goes in and only minor results trickle out.

Exhibit F: The rate of high-consumption binge-drinking among young people has not improved since the drinking age was raised to 21. The total number of young drinkers has increased, but the percentages are nearly the same as in 1984 (when the limit was raised). Just based on these simple examples, the increased age did nothing but increase arrests and legal costs. It makes sense that younger people will be affected by alcohol differently (e.g. higher impairment rates at similar levels of consumption than older people). But there is no conclusive proof available that increasing the minimum age decreased any of these markers. (Note: it’s true that ~50% fewer teens were killed in alcohol related car crashes in 2006 than in 1984. But that number does NOT include corrections for increases in car safety and design.). Also regarding accidents- alcohol use is not divorced from inexperience with driving. Older drivers that drive drunk are less likely to be killed because they have more experience handling a vehicle and can mitigate the impact to a larger extent than young people. This factor is also not considered when comparing young drinkers to older drinkers in traffic accidents.

Suffice it to say that my answer is yes. I’m all for lowering the drinking age. In fact, I think parents and kids are the ones best suited to know when each individual is mature enough to use alcohol responsibly. Much like other “solutions” in our political climate, this one has a one-size-fits-all mentality that does not reflect reality. We have to educate kids about alcohol. They need to know the physical and psychological implications, good and bad. Low amounts of alcohol have been shown to be beneficial to health. High, prolonged consumption takes a devastating toll on the body and mind, as well as the people around you. Believe me…I know. Alcohol impairs your judgment and means you shouldn’t operate either heavy machinery or your reproductive organs. But in the end, whether the drinking age is 12 or 50, people will still make the choice to drink or not. If they choose to, they should be aware of the ramifications and have the information to make an informed decision.

Labeling alcohol as evil is not the answer. Forbidding it is not the answer. Let’s take a lesson from our constitutional history and remember how well prohibition worked. Is the answer education and personal responsibility? Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn’t seem to be something we’ve tried. Whatever the answer is, the current drinking age remains an anachronism and my headlines remain cluttered with stupid questions.