True Spirit of America Party

State of the Planet Address 2012

2012-01-25T08:50:00.000-08:00

On January 24, 2012, the President gave his annual State of the Union Address. Every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our annual State of the Planet Address. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:

Our planet is in grave danger. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. And in 2010, we had the worst oil spill in the entire history of the world, leaving widespread and severe environmental damage in its wake that will persist for years to come.

None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towars the planet has to end.

While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. Every dollar raised will be used this way without exception. Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this embedded tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.

Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress".

We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but we do not support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). But the current tax and benefit incentives that reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to 1.9 (though that is probably just due to the bad economy rather than a secular trend). But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.

Facts About the State of the Union

2012-01-24T14:13:00.000-08:00

President Obama gives his annual State of the Union Address tonight. In addition to watching it, you should also look at the following link to get the facts about what has gone on since his last State of the Union Address in 2011:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/24/409088/facts-the-state-of-the-union/?mobile=nc

Down With SOPA!

2012-01-18T17:29:00.000-08:00

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), along with its companion bill Protect IP Act (PIPA), is currently being debated in Congress. This bipartisan effort, ostensibly to fight internet piracy and counterfeit goods, has been mired in controversy since its inception. While supporters (mainly those in the entertainment industry) hail it as a necessary step to take, opponents (most Internet users and virtually all of Silicon Valley) fear that it would amount to censorship of the Internet.

Regardless of how you feel about piracy (and counterfeiting), SOPA's vague language goes way beyond that. It essentially creates a "Great Firewall of America" that would blacklist not only pirate sites, but potentially any site worldwide with user-created content if corporations claim that such content may have been pirated. Internet service providers could be required to block IP addresses of certain sites and monitor Internet traffic, effectively making such sites disappear from the Web. The potential for collateral damage (not to mention abuse) is enormous, and there are also security implications to consider. Such a bill would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment's guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Additionally, SOPA is unnecessary--there are other means to defeat the foreign and domestic "rogue sites" that are the primary targets, and one alternative bill (the OPEN Act) does so by cutting off funding to such sites (from ads and credit cards) without actually censoring the Internet or any part of it.

It should go without saying that the TSAP opposes this bill, which would chill the free exchange of ideas and essentially end the Internet as we know it.

UPDATE: It appears that SOPA has been shelved by Congress for now. And we hope it never rears its ugly head again.

Just How Bad Is America's Wealth Gap?

2011-12-29T13:33:00.000-08:00

The latest study on America's growing inequality of wealth and income is really quite sobering indeed: we are worse than the Ivory Coast and Pakistan in terms of inequality, and possibly even worse than Ancient Rome was. And Rome was a society built on slave labor and that prided itself on class distinctions, so that really says something. It's especially scary when we remember what eventually happened to the Romans after centuries of such inequality.

Right now, the top 1% of Americans control roughly 40% of the nation's wealth, which is more than twice as much as it was in Rome (16%) or America in 1979 (19%). Income has also seen a yawning chasm as well, with the share of after-tax income doubling from 1976 to 2007 and the share of pre-tax income nearly tripling. From 1979 to 2007, after-tax income skyrocketed a whopping 281%, despite little gains for the bottom 80%. Meanwhile, the average hourly wage has largely stagnated since 1972 when adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage has lagged behind inflation since 1968, and real family income actually declined from 1979-2009 for the bottom 20%. Things are even worse for younger workers. And the Bush tax cuts, especially for dividends and capital gains, have greatly contributed to the problem. There are even some billionaires that pay nothing or next to nothing right now due to all the crazy loopholes. Thus, since 1979, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. And the middle class continues to shrink.

Bottom line: the problem of wealth and income inequality isn't gonna fix itself. The top 1% can easily afford to share their vast wealth and still be very rich, but due to greed they do everything they can not to do so. Thus they need to be taxed more than they are now--a LOT more. To whom much has been given, much will be expected. The TSAP would consider the following graduated scheme of marginal tax rates (loosely adapted from Robert Reich) to be fair:

Under $20,000: no income tax
$20,000 to $50,000: 5%
$50,000 to $90,000: 10%
$90,000 to $150,000: 20%
$150,000 to $250,000, 30%
$250,000 to $1,000,000, 40%
$1,000,000 to $10 million, 50%
over $10 million, 70%

Unlike the current Byzantine tax code, there would be no loopholes or any deductions other than for state and/or local income taxes paid, and a limited amount (up to 10% of income) for charitable donations. Also, all forms of income (wages, interest, dividends, and capital gains) would be taxed equally, unlike the status quo. And a top marginal rate of 50% or even 70% is actually pretty tame compared to what it was in the 1950s and early 1960s, which hovered around 90%.

For corporations, a 20% income tax with no loopholes would be infinitely better than the one we have now, with 2/3 or large corporations (including ExxonMobil, GE, B of A, and BP) currently paying zero income taxes while numerous unfortunate small businesses get hit with up to a 35% tax. Even better would be if the first $500,000 per year was tax-free.

Resurrect the estate tax (aka "death tax") to 50% for all estates worth $2 million or more. If the Republicans really believe in "meritocracy" like they claim to, why then do they support unlimited tax-free inheritances for the filthy rich?

A modest financial transactions tax (0.25% per transaction) would also raise about $150 billion and charge it all to Wall Street. Plus, it would help discourage reckless speculation by the parasites that got America into the mess we're in now. And speaking of Wall Street, other changes are in order as well, including re-imposition of the Glass-Steagall Act that prevailed from 1932 until its repeal in 1999.

In addition, we should seriously consider a one-time 15% wealth tax on those with a net worth above $10 million, similar to the one Donald Trump suggested in 2000 to pay down the national debt. They would get ten years to pay it, with interest added for every year. Of course, our debt is much larger now than it was back then (three times larger in fact), but it's a good start nonetheless.

We can just hear the whining and squealing right now. But taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

The War Is Over--At Least in Iraq

2011-12-19T11:10:00.000-08:00

On December 18, 2011, after nearly nine years of occupation, the Iraq War is finally over. Just in time for the holidays, the last remaining troops have been removed from Iraq and can finally come home. This is certainly cause for a celebration. And unlike Vietnam, we actually won this war for the most part despite the fact that our victory was rather Pyrrhic indeed.

However, Afghanistan is another story. Our troops are still there, and it is still not entirely clear when we will get out, despite the fact that we got Bin Laden in Pakistan and neutralized many other senior members of Al-Qaeda. And we need to promptly end that war as well, and leave on the prevailing (somewhat) high note lest it become the next Vietnam.

War is over, if you want it.

Will Healthcare Deform Survive the Supreme Court?

2011-11-27T14:35:00.000-08:00

The healthcare ~~reform~~ deform bill that was signed into law in 2010 and whose most controversial aspect, the so-called "individual mandate", will be phased in starting in 2014, is now being taken to the Supreme Court after an appeals court recently struck down the mandate. And much more is at stake than just this particular law. Regardless of which way they rule, a landmark precedent will be set that will influence future court decisions, rightly or wrongly.

We at the TSAP believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and must be struck down. There are several reasons why such a mandate is wrong on principle. Not least of which is that forcing people to buy an overpriced, defective product from a private company year after year under penalty of law is about as constitutional as a poll tax. But what about the rest of the 2400 page law?

Many folks, especially those in the insurance industry, are terrified that getting rid of the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact would create an unsustainable death spiral where people will wait until they get sick to buy insurance (due to the another provision that requires community rating and guaranteed issue, i.e. everyone pays the same and no one can be turned down), making costs skyrocket out of control. While it would most likely hit the insurance industry's bottom line quite hard, the fear is really quite exaggerated. For example, while Massachusetts currently has an individual mandate along with community rating and guaranteed issue, New York does the same but without the individual mandate, and yet the latter actually has lower premiums than the former. Granted, both states have ridiculously high rates, but individual mandates don't appear to make rates any lower or make the system any more successful. And New York's insurance industry is hardly in a death spiral.

The best solution, of course, is a single-payer system similar to Canada's. An excellent plan can be found here, for example. But will Congress have the intestinal fortitude to finally stand up to the greedy insurance industry and its deep-pocketed lobbyists, who will do everything they can to fight it?

Americans are Still Having Fewer Kids in 2010

2011-11-18T10:24:00.000-08:00

We have already noted the latest news from the 2010 Census that shows that, across the board, Americans are having fewer children than they did ten years prior. It turns out that the drop in births has been even greater, mainly as a result of the Second Great Depression (yes, that's what it really is for everyone but the top 1%). The total fertility rate has dropped from 2.1 children per woman in 2006 to 1.9 in 2010, the lowest it has been in about two decades. While some folks may view that as something to fear, we at the True Spirit of America Party consider this to be good news. And it couldn't come soon enough.

We have already noted in the past that overpopulation is NOT a myth--it is (or soon will be) a reality that we need to deal with, or it will deal with us in ways we probably won't like. It is the elephant in the Volkswagen than no one wants to talk about, but ignoring it will not make it go away. The latest projections show that if current demographic trends continue, the world's population (which is already 7 billion and counting) will grow to a whopping 9.3 billion (or possibly even as high as 10.6 billion) by 2050. From 2050 to 2100, the population would either decline to 6.2 billion or continue growing to 15.8 billion, depending on only a relatively small difference in the world's total fertility rate. It truly boggles the mind how the Earth can sustain 9 billion people, let alone nearly 16 billion, when several credible sources say that we have already exceeded the planet's long-term carrying capacity many years ago. Let that sink in for a minute or two.

In 2008, the USA alone was predicted to grow to as high as 438 million people by 2050. Most of that growth would be due to immigration, but a significant chunk would be due to fertility, including the historically higher fertility of immigrants. Though with current reductions in fertility and slowing of immigration (both likely due to the severe recession), if persistent, would reduce that forecast number significantly, even the lowest projections predict a sizeable increase in the population to over 350 million by then nonetheless. And despite being only 5% of the world's population, we consume 25% of the world's natural resources, so any further increase in the number of Americans has much more of an impact than the same number increase in, say, a typical Third or Fourth World country. But ultimately, there is no country that can realistically keep growing and growing forever without adverse consequences. And even if we manage to cut our per-capita consumption in half, allowing the population to subsequently double will completely negate any progress made, despite a reduced standard of living.

Bottom line: the current trend toward lower fertility (and less immigration) ought to continue, and is good news overall, but we still really need to be careful how many more immigrants we let into our already overpopulated nation of 308 million and counting. We ignore the elephant in the Volkswagen at our own peril.

We Support the Wall Street Protests

2011-10-06T11:11:00.000-07:00

The TSAP fully supports the Occupy Wall Street Protests. The richest 1% of the population, who owns 42% of the nation's wealth, has for decades benefited tremendously at the expense of the other 99%. This is especially true for the top 0.1% and applies a fortiori to the top 0.01%, many of whose bankers, stockbrokers, hedge fund managers, and corporate tycoons and CEOs are guilty of the following:

Recklessly causing the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the resulting economic depression (yes, it's a depression, not a recession) that we are still stuck in.
Ruthlessly foreclosing homeowners whose mortgages are underwater.
Ruthlessly laying off employees they feel are redundant, while outsourcing jobs overseas.
Demanding huge tax cuts and huge tax loopholes for themselves, promising to create jobs, then pocketing the savings in the form of 7 or 8-figure salaries and bonuses instead.
Trashing the environment, and only cleaning it up later when it is a tax write-off.
Allowing their own wealth and income to greatly outpace inflation, while leaving the majority of Americans behind, and having the audacity to call it "economic growth".

So of course the protesters have a right to be out in the street demanding our country back from the greedy. However, there are some caveats we need to be aware of. Some idiots out there have decided to resort to violence, which we do NOT support, and that has much potential to ruin the movement. In fact we would not be surprised one bit if the violence (and threats of violence) was a false-flag operation by the authorities and lapdogs of the ultra-rich in an attempt to discredit the movement. Also, some idiots and conspiracy nuts have been recorded making anti-Semitic remarks, which we also unequivocally condemn. This protest really has nothing to do with any particular ethnic or religious group; it is fundamentally a socioeconomic class issue, and framing it as something that it is not can only hurt the movement. But again, we would not be surprised if that was false-flag as well.

Finally, we must note that there are several decent people and even philanthropists in the top 1% and even the top 0.01%, Warren Buffett being a notable example. But there are enough parasites at the top for the current situation to be a problem for most of America, and for the sake of virtually everyone we absolutely MUST raise taxes on the top 1%--and dramatically so for the top 0.1%. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and anything less would be uncivilized.

Will President Obama Finally Stand Up to Congress (and their Ultra-Rich Sponsors)?

2011-09-22T11:30:00.000-07:00

Lately, President Obama has been calling for increased taxes on the filthy rich to help balance our nation's ridiculously unbalanced budget, a legacy of ten years of tax cuts for the wealthy and two lengthy wars (not to mention the worst recession since the Great Depression). In fact, he had wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the two highest brackets at the end of 2010, but the greedy Republicans in Congress (showing who they really care about) threatened to filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits and leave millions of struggling Americans high and dry. So Obama capitulated and reluctantly extended the tax cuts for two more years, making the deficit so high that we exceeded the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling a few months ago and we almost defaulted before he was able to persuade Congress to finally raise the ceiling at the eleventh hour.

And now Obama is back to talking tough. But will he finally walk the walk? Let's hope he does, for the sake of over 99% of Americans.

Debt Ceiling Disaster Averted--For Now

2011-08-03T15:16:00.001-07:00

On August 2, Congress approved a deal that raises the debt ceiling enough to cover us through 2012 while appointing a bipartisan commission to deal with reducing the deficit in the long run. However, there is currently no real solution on the table. Real solutions would include jacking up taxes on the rich (like they were before Reagan took over), closing corporate tax loopholes, ending the current wasteful wars, cutting our bloated "defense" budget in half, and actually fixing entitlement programs rather than gutting them (like the Republicans) or ignoring the problems (like far too many Democrats these days). The TSAP has repeatedly noted all the ways to fix our budget and economy, but it looks like our advice will not be heeded as long as Americans keep voting for spineless Democrats and crazy Republicans. Wimps to the left of me, crazies to the right--stuck in the middle with you, to paraphrase a popular 1970s song.

How Bad is Our Economy? Just Ask a Mexican

2011-07-12T08:31:00.000-07:00

Take off your rose-colored glasses and sit down. Ready? OK, here's the truth, warts and all:

You know the American economy is doing bad if even Mexican (and other) immigrants won't come here anymore. Just a few years ago, the nation was flooded with a seemingly unstoppable flow of immigration, both legal and illegal, thanks to NAFTA wrecking both countries (while simultaneously enriching the elites in both countries) and Bush being too busy invading and looting other countries to protect our own borders. But once our economy's bubble burst, millions of jobs disappeared--as did the much of the flow of desperate job-seekers from other countries. Of course, there are other factors at work here, such as the declining birth rates in Mexico and other Latin American countries, the non-passage of the amnesty bill, as well as Obama getting marginally tougher (but not nearly tough enough) on rogue employers who would rather exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor than hire native-born Americans at a decent living wage. But the biggest factor, at least in the short term, has been the lack of jobs on this side of the border. Now that's just sad.

Our nation's unemployment rate is still hovering above 9%, over 3 1/2 years after the recession began and fully two years after the recession was supposedly over. Our jobless pseudo-recovery since June 2009 has consistently had an unemployment rate at least double what it was during the "prosperity" of 2005-2007. And for the first time in decades, our unemployment has been higher than Canada's since 2009. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones has made tremendous gains since its low in March 2009, nearly doubling since then and returning essentially to pre-crash levels. And the largest corporations have boasted record profits in 2010 and early 2011, while simultaneously outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries. In other words, it was the best of times (for the filthy rich, mega-corporations, and Wall Street) and the worst of times (for everyone else).

So when does a recession officially become a depression? The old joke is that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, and a depression is when you lose your job. Using that definition, the majority of Americans were in their own personal recession even before the crash of 2008, and now many people are in their own personal depression, all while the elites mock their suffering and do everything they can to avoid (heaven forbid) paying their fair share of taxes. And at least as far as jobs go, while still not quite as bad as the Great Depression, we unfortunately appear to be in an L-shaped recession similar to Japan in the 1990s. And up until the Great Depression, the term "depression" was routinely applied to less severe economic contractions (it was actually a euphemism back then to call it such). Either way, it really seems to be all about semantics as far as the politicians are concerned.

The Clock is Still Ticking

2011-07-08T12:43:00.000-07:00

The President and Congress still have not agreed on the issue of the debt ceiling. As we have noted before, failure to raise the ceiling by August 2 will all but guarantee a default, which will be catastrophic. And the Republicans know it, that's why they would never dream of doing such a thing during a Republican presidency--it's painfully obvious who the American people will blame if such a crisis ever did unfold, and it's not Congress that will take the heat.

To John Boehner and the Republicans: STOP PLAYING CHICKEN WITH THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW! Why are you so afraid of you and your uber-rich buddies paying somewhat higher taxes that you would be willing to either a) risk default on the debt, which hurts all Americans, or b) dismantle the social safety net, which hurts the most vulnerable Americans? And God forbid we stop waging pointless wars of aggression across the globe, of course.

To President Obama: If the Republicans want to play hardball, do your Constitutional duty and ignore the ceiling for the time being in order to prevent a default. They are throwing a tantrum at the very idea of having to pay their fair share of taxes--don't give into their demands. You have already made more than enough concessions to them as it is, and when you give them an inch, they take a mile. It's up to YOU to be the adult among the overgrown children we so foolishly elected in 2010. Oh yeah, and by the way, END ALL OF THE WARS by December. All of them. That should save a fortune.

Happy Fourth of July!

2011-07-04T20:21:00.000-07:00

Today, our great nation is 235 years old. Actually it is older than that, but we did not declare independence from Britain until July 4, 1776. Happy Birthday America!

Americans Are Having Fewer Kids

2011-06-04T19:42:00.000-07:00

The latest news from the 2010 Census shows that, across the board, Americans are having fewer children than they did ten years prior. While some folks may view that as something to fear, we at the True Spirit of America Party consider this to be good news. And it couldn't come soon enough.

We have already noted in the past that overpopulation is NOT a myth--it is (or soon will be) a reality that we need to deal with, or it will deal with us in ways we probably won't like. It is the elephant in the Volkswagen than no one wants to talk about, but ignoring it will not make it go away. The latest projections show that if current demographic trends continue, the world's population (which is already nearly 7 billion and counting) will grow to a whopping 9.3 billion (or possibly even as high as 10.6 billion) by 2050. From 2050 to 2100, the population would either decline to 6.2 billion or continue growing to 15.8 billion, depending on only a relatively small difference in the world's total fertility rate. It truly boggles the mind how the Earth can sustain 9 billion people, let alone nearly 16 billion, when several credible sources say that we have already exceeded the planet's long-term carrying capacity many years ago. Let that sink in for a minute or two.

In 2008, the USA alone was predicted to grow to as high as 438 million people by 2050. Most of that growth would be due to immigration, but a significant chunk would be due to fertility, including the historically higher fertility of immigrants. Though with current reductions in fertility and slowing of immigration (both likely due to the severe recession), if persistent, would reduce that forecast number significantly, even the lowest projections predict a sizeable increase in the population to over 350 million by then nonetheless. And despite being only 5% of the world's population, we consume 25% of the world's natural resources, so any further increase in the number of Americans has much more of an impact than the same number increase in, say, a typical Third or Fourth World country. But ultimately, there is no country that can realistically keep growing and growing forever without adverse consequences. And even if we manage to cut our per-capita consumption in half, allowing the population to subsequently double will completely negate any progress made, despite a reduced standard of living.

Bottom line: the current trend toward lower fertility ought to continue, and is good news overall, but we still really need to be careful how many more immigrants we let into our already overpopulated nation of 308 million and counting. We ignore the elephant in the Volkswagen at our own peril.

The Clock is Ticking

2011-06-01T10:14:00.000-07:00

Just recently, the latest attempt to raise the national debt ceiling failed. We have already reached the debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion last month, and there is fear that if we don't raise it by August 2, the nation will default, which would be catastrophic to our already weak economy. The reason is that most of the money in the budget has already been committed when the budget was approved in March, which unfortunately requires more borrowing just to pay the interest on the debt, let alone everything else in the budget. The government can trim a little here and there with accounting tricks for now to prevent a default, but that can only last for so long.

We at the TSAP were against raising the debt ceiling back in January, but that was before the budget was passed and the money already committed. Now, however, we denounce Boehner and the Republicans' asinine and ideological attempt at playing chicken with our nation's finances, for very obvious reasons. Now that both parties have already ordered their dinner and ate most of it, one party decides to dine and dash--only in this case it's not just a restaurant but the entire nation. And the penalty would be far worse than a mere few hours of washing dishes.

The only way out of this, ironically, is to raise the ceiling just enough to get through the rest of the fiscal year (e.g. to about $15 trillion), but tie it to significant tax hikes and spending cuts. These would include:

Tax Hikes

End the Bush tax cuts immediately for the top two brackets, and the rest of them effective one or two years later.
Create a new 50% bracket at $1 million and up immediately, and possibly even a 60% or greater one at $10 million.
Close ALL loopholes in the tax code that benefit those with high incomes.
No more tax breaks or loopholes for large corporations--absolutely NONE.
Remove the tax cap on Social Security immediately, so everyone pays their fair share.
Pass a financial transactions tax of 0.25%.
Raise the alcohol taxes and other excise taxes significantly.
Raise the gas tax by a penny a week until it is $1.00 greater than it is now.
Consider significant tariffs on imports from countries where workers are paid next to nothing.

Spending Cuts

End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a complete withdrawal by December 31, 2011 (Iraq) and no later than July 1, 2012 (Afghanistan).
Get out of Libya as soon as Gaddafi is captured or killed, if not sooner.
Cut the defense budget (including the hidden parts) in half within a year, and close all unnecessary overseas military bases.
No more subsidies to large corporations or Big Agro--NONE.

Do all of those things and the budget should be balanced for several years to come. But of course that would require logic and common sense, two things that are unfortunately lacking on Capitol Hill. It really makes you wonder if there's something in the drinking water over in DC.

Ding Dong, Bin Laden is Dead!

2011-05-02T12:03:00.000-07:00

It's now offical, Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, is dead. For real, this time. We finally got him in Pakistan.

It sure as hell took long enough--nearly ten years in fact. Our troops had him virtually cornered in Tora Bora in December 2001, the third month of the war, but for some reason (*cough* Bush *cough* Cheney *cough*) he managed to slither away despite supposedly being on dialysis at the time. What followed after that was near-decade-long quagmire, not least because our leaders really dropped the ball by going into Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan. The fact that he was killed in Pakistan yesterday confirms the theory that he fled there after Tora Bora. The same country McCain ridiculed Obama for wanting to hunt Al-Qaeda in, ironically.

All this pretty much guarantees that Obama will be re-elected in 2012 of course. Which is a good thing in our view, especially considering who he is likely running against.

So, can we FINALLY bring our troops home now? Preferably alive?

Why Reverse Robin Hood Economics Must End

2011-04-02T13:36:00.000-07:00

A new book, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer, shows what we have known for quite some time now. For the past three decades, our economy has grown dramatically, while nearly all of those gains have gone to the top 1%, especially the top 0.1% whose education and skills are not significantly better than those just below them. Meanwhile, most Americans saw little to no improvement, the middle class has shrank, and the bottom 40% has actually seen a decline in their real standard of living since 1980. So much for the trickle-down theory that the conservatives promised. More like the reverse of Robin Hood: rob from the poor, and give to the rich.

However, it was not always like this. From the end of WWII through the 1970s, America's massive prosperity was actually shared. In fact, those at the bottom actually gained somewhat more than those higher up the ladder, and poverty rates plummeted from 1950-1970 as wages rose with the economy, reaching an all-time low in 1973. We had essentially full employment and relatively low inflation until the early 1970s when stagflation and the oil crises unfolded. Back then, we actually made stuff that was worth something, and laying Americans off to exploit cheap Third World labor was considered unpatriotic at best. And believe it or not, it was actually possible for the vast majority of workers to support a family on only one income and a 40-hour workweek. Though far from being a true golden age (just ask any black person who was around then, for example), our real economy was probably the best it had ever been before or since.

Why was this quasi-golden age possible? Of course, the aftermath of WWII that devastated other countries but left us relatively unscathed partly explains our massive growth. But that in itself does not explain why prosperity was shared so equitably compared to previous or later eras. So let's look at Washington's influence, which is quite obvious. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top marginal tax rate was about 90%, and about 70% from the mid-1960s until 1981. Not only that, but inflation-adjusted thresholds for the top rate were also much higher then as well. The minimum wage, first instituted in 1938 under FDR, had been repeatedly increased faster than inflation until it peaked in 1968 at $10/hr (in 2010 dollars), after which it had begun lag inflation. And the effective minimum wage was even higher in most industries due to the strength of labor unions at the time, which Washington supported (or at least did not try to undermine). Under such conditions, companies rightly thought it silly to pay paper-pushing CEOs hundreds of times what the average workers make and give them massive bonuses on top of that. Instead, they invested their wealth in all of their workers, productivity enhancements, and thus invested in America as a whole. And of the high taxes they paid, a great deal was spent on public infrastructure that spurred economic growth. The 1960s also saw an expansion of social welfare programs as well, known as the Great Society. In other words, contrary to what conservatives like John McCain often claim, it seems that is entirely possible to both create and spread wealth at the same time.

But wait, haven't we all been told by the right-wingers (i.e. lapdogs of the ultra-rich) that all of these things somehow destroy the economy and cost millions of jobs? Apparently, these things work in practice, but not in theory. At least not what would eventually become the orthodox theory of economics.

Enter Ronald Reagan in 1981, who promised to fix the economy that was reeling from recession and inflation at the time. One of the first things he did was cut taxes, primarily for the top bracket. The top marginal rate was cut to 50%, and then to 28%. By the time he left office, the threshold for the top marginal rate had also shrank to below $100,000 in today's dollars. He also let the minimum wage lag behind inflation, cut various social programs, weakend business regulations, helped undermine unions, encouraged globalization (read: offshoring/outsourcing jobs) and increased "defense" (read: war) spending. CEOs got richer, while their employees saw no improvement or got poorer. Then Bush I raised taxes slightly, but continued in his predecessors footsteps. Clinton raised taxes more, especially at the top, but they were still lower than they were in Reagan's first term. While he presided over the longest continuous economic expansion in America's history, he too helped to promote further offshoring/outsourcing via NAFTA and gutted the social safety net further. Bush II continued the Reagan/Bush tradition of cutting taxes for the rich and weakening regulations, especially financial regulations. Over time, our manufacturing base, once the wonder of the world, has been gutted and replaced by a two-tier service economy with a massive financial sector at the top and low-wage jobs at the bottom. All throughout this time, the poor and middle class borrowed more and more money just to maintain the standard of living they had a few decades ago, let alone keep up with the rich Joneses, who gained unprecedented levels of wealth. By 2007, our nation's economic inequality had reached the levels we had in 1929, and like then, the bubble finally burst and the economy crashed in 2008. And we are still reeling from the crash nearly three years later, with unemployment more than double the 2007 rate and poverty at a 15-year high. And now the deficit and national debt are at an all-time high.

Another trend that occurred in parallel with this was inflation, which really took off when Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971. Now, the Feral Reserve can print as much money as they want and keep interest rates artificially low. This, along with lower taxes on the rich and weakened financial regulations, also helped to fuel massive bubbles, such as housing, commodities, credit, derivatives, and the stock market. In addition, massive inflation (what cost $1 in 1970 now costs $5.62 in 2010, and that's a conservative estimate) hits the poor the hardest all while helping to conceal stagnant or declining real wages. In fact, it got so bad that the Fed actually had to cause a recession (by jacking up interest rates to double-digits) in 1980-82 just to slow down inflation. Going back much farther, we see that what would have cost $1 in 1774 (just before the American Revolution) would have still cost about the same in 1912. Then the Feral Reserve was founded in 1913, the gold standard was abandoned in 1933 (but reinstated from 1946-1971), and what would have cost $1 in 1774 or 1912 would now cost a whopping $22--again a conservative estimate. Just like boiling a frog by gradually turning up the heat, this has been a clever way to rob from the poor and middle class and give to the rich, with most of the former being none the wiser.

It seems that the American Dream is now running in reverse. If we continue on our current path, each generation can expect to be poorer, not richer, than the previous one. Not to mention more heavily taxed to pay for the excesses of the past. But not the top 1% of course. Nevermind that they benefit the most from the mere existence of government to protect their massive wealth and to provide a stable infrastructure to enable them to earn it, as even Adam Smith (the veritable god of capitalism) so astutely observed.

There is nothing necessary, just, or sustainable about our nation's economic policies of the past few decades. Extreme concentration of wealth at the top hurts just about everyone in the long run. If we are to recover from the predicament our nation is in, we need to get back to doing what once made America great. Merely repealing the Bush tax cuts is not nearly enough. We must raise the top marginal rate to at least 50% for every dollar above $1 million, and perhaps even 70% for every dollar over $10 million, with no loopholes this time. The (apparently missing) million-dollar bracket that once existed must be restored. We must eliminate the tax cap on Social Security payroll taxes. We must remove corporate loopholes so that the largest corporations like GE and ExxonMobil (who somehow managed to pay zero taxes last year) would start actually paying taxes for once. We must raise the minimum wage to at least $10/hr, which is what it would have been if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, and index it to inflation from then on. We must repair our frayed social safety net. We must restore reasonable regulation on the financial sector. And we need to restore tariffs on imports made with cheap Third World labor, and use that revenue to put unemployed or underemployed Americans to work fixing our declining infrastructure and revitalizing our dilapidated manufacturing base. The government has redistributed wealth upward for decades now, and it's time to halt and reverse this ugly trend ASAP. While some may denounce these measures as "socialist" or even "communist", that would make Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon communists. And these Cold War presidents would all spin in their graves at such an accusation to say the least.

The time to end this massive injustice is now. But will our elected officials have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the ultra-rich?

How to Balance the Budget in Five Easy Steps

2011-03-30T14:25:00.000-07:00

As we approach our debt ceiling, we need to realize the unsustainability of our current fiscal policies. Our national debt is a whopping $14.3 TRILLION dollars. Even the interest alone is hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been mired in two wars for the past eight years, one of which for nearly ten. And in we face over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the long run, for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As a rule, the Republicans refuse to raise taxes or cut "defense" (read: war) spending, the Democrats refuse to cut spending on anything else, both preferring to kick the can further and further down the road and dump the burden on future generations.

The truth is that we need to both raise taxes AND cut spending. Otherwise it will only get worse. While there are many ways to do this, the least painful (to the general public) of which involves the following:

1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts, at least for those who make over $200,000, create a new tax bracket at $1 million and up, and make the top marginal rate at least 50% (if not 70%) on all income above that amount, with no loopholes. No deductions other than state and local income taxes, and very limited charitable donations.

2) Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25%, with the first million tax-free, but remove ALL loopholes, and charge a higher rate on companies that outsource/offshore jobs overseas.

3) Remove the cap on Social Security taxes, limit benefits to wealthier retirees, index initial benefits to prices rather than wages, and invest at least some of the trust funds in the stock and (non-government) bond markets.

4) End the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, remove all troops by December, and cut our defense budget in half over the next year or two.

5) Enact a single-payer healthcare system that would finally bring costs under control. Fund it by the same revenue that is currently used for Medicare, Medicaid, and similar programs, plus a modest payroll tax and increased excise taxes (such as alcohol and cigarettes).

These things would quickly close the budget gap, with little pain for the general population, but the ultra-rich would hate all five of these steps. Other things that could be done include:

6) Pass a "financial transactions tax" of 0.25%, just high enough to discourage speculation and raise revenue but not enough to cause significant disruptions.

7) Create a value-added tax (VAT) like most other countries have, possibly offset by eliminating income tax on those who make less than $50,000 or $100,000 and giving a modest "prebate" to everyone regardless of income.

8) End the War on Drugs, at least for cannabis, and tax the hell out of all newly legalized substances. Consider doing the same for other victimless crimes as well.

9) Raise our tariffs on anything made with cheap Third World labor, and use at least some of that revenue to create jobs over here.

10) Cut wasteful subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agro, Big Tobacco, and Big Anything for that matter.

11) Raise the gas tax by a penny each week until it is a dollar higher than it is now, and use the revenue to fund much-needed public infrastructure improvements. Call it "a penny for progress".

Regardless of how it's done, we cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road. And the steps we recommend are the least damaging ways to do it.

May You Live in Interesting Times

2011-03-11T12:11:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is supposedly an English translation of an ancient Chinese curse, though obviously not everyone sees it that way. But for good or ill, the present time would certainly qualify.

Many oldsters view of the 1960s and early 1970s as the most interesting and exciting time in recent memory, and until very recently the media has constantly implied as much. But the early 21st century (especially the decade that just began) in many ways blows the past out of the water. Here is a quick summary of all the reasons why:

Increasing political upheavals around the world--Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Wisconsin.
Increasing politically-motivated violence of all kinds, despite overall crime rates dropping.
Increasing natural disasters, including the Japanese 8.9 earthquake and tsunamis that occurred just yesterday.
Increasing man-made disasters, such as the BP oil spill and other ecological problems.
A severe economic recession for the past few years, that we still have yet to recover from.
Skyrocketing fuel and food prices.
Federal and state budget woes from a record-high deficit and national debt.
Long, drawn-out foreign wars in which America is still participating.

And there you have it. Interesting times, all right--for good or ill. But allow us to introduce a real pearl of ancient Chinese wisdom: the Chinese word for "crisis" is weiji--two characters that separately mean danger and (albeit very loosely) opportunity. Which is precisely the best way to view this sort of situation.

Reefer Madness Redux

2011-03-02T10:20:00.000-08:00

In these crazy times, it seems that the anti-cannabis movement has finally come full-circle. I'm sure we have all heard about Reefer Madness, a movie from 1936 that tried to scare people about the supposed evils of cannabis. You know--murder, rape, suicide, promiscuity, and of course insanity. Worse than even heroin, it was alleged at the time. People were led to believe these outlandish claims, which contributed to cannabis becoming illegal by 1937 thanks to Harry Anslinger. Not like that stopped very many people from using it of course--it has gone from negligible levels of use back then to literally millions of users today.

As far back as the La Guardia Committee Report in 1944, such claims were largely debunked, and by 1951 Harry Anslinger changed his propaganda to claim the (now widely discredited) gateway theory, as well as the idea that it made users too peaceful to fight the Reds (quite the opposite of the original legend).  In the 1960s it became associated with the anti-establishment counterculture, thus "amotivational syndrome" was the latest allegation leveled against it, along with ideas of general licentiousness, rebellion and lawlessness.   Nixon even associated it with communism among other things, and was less than pleased when a study that he commissioned found results that were not to his liking. The 1970s brought several later discredited studies alleging serious brain damage (e.g. Dr. Heath's now infamous monkey study) and even genetic mutations, but claims of Reefer Madness had largely been abandoned by then. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of these themes kept on being recycled, plus the idea that had become much more potent (and dangerous) than it was in the 1960s and 1970s when the Baby Boomers were young.

But now it seems that claims of Reefer Madness, or at least the psychosis part of the legend, has made a comeback in recent years. Just when it seems that legalization is right around the corner, no less. Several recent studies claim to show a link between cannabis and psychosis, including schizophrenia. But is it true?

The best one can honestly say is that, overall, the jury is still out. Correlation is not the same as causation, and there are numerous other variables to consider. Take, for example, a study done last month that found that the cannabis-using individuals who did develop schizophrenia do so 2.7 years earlier than nonusers. This was a meta-analysis of many other studies, and of course the media took it and ran with it. But not all experts agree. Dr. Mitch Earleywine, an expert on cannabis, has his doubts about the study's ability to demonstrate a causal relationship. And one must remember that even if it did, it does not mean that it causes cases that would not otherwise have occurred--the study was not designed to look at that. In any event, the study design cannot completely rule out reverse causation (such as self-medication) either. Indeed, quite a few studies, including one by Earleywine himself, have suggested reverse causation or a common vulnerability as a possible explanation for the rather complex association between cannabis and psychosis.

So what about the most recent study that found that cannabis use is associated with a 1.9-fold increased odds of later psychotic symptoms? Unlike most other studies, this was a ten-year prospective longitudinal study (in Germany) that followed participants before they began using cannabis, and controlled for numerous confounders such as family history, urbanicity, childhood trauma, and use of other drugs. And there was no evidence of psychotic symptoms predicting later cannabis use, in contrast to some other prospective studies. However, several caveats apply here. First, it looked as psychotic symptoms (a fairly broad category that is quite prevalent in the general population) rather than actual psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Such symptoms as well as cannabis use were both self-reported, making reporting bias possible (i.e. those who are more frank about admitting to crazy thoughts may be more likely to admit to using an illicit substance). In fact, some such symptoms are remarkably similar to simply being stoned! Secondly, any epidemiological study with an odds ratio (or relative risk) of less than 2.0 needs to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound. Thirdly, while other drugs were controlled for, residual confounding is possible since some poly-drug users to admit to using cannabis (a more socially acceptable drug) but not, say, crystal meth, thereby making cannabis the "fall guy" for other unreported drugs. Lacing without the user's knowledge is also a possibility due to the illegality of the plant. And like most studies on the matter, tobacco use was not directly controlled for in this study (or last month's one), which may be difficult to disentangle since the vast majority of European cannabis users also use tobacco (often mixed in their joints), making tobacco a possible "dark horse".  Nicotine (a known neurotoxin) is, after all, the number one drug used by psychotic people for whatever reason. Finally, the study did not distinguish between light and heavy use of cannabis, or other substances for that matter, making it impossible to test for a dose-response relationship. But of course none of these caveats have stopped the MSM from claiming that this study is the final word on the matter.

Another obsevation we have noticed is that the vast majority of studies (including the one above) that appear to support a causal relationship have Dr. Robin Murray (UK) and/or Dr. Jim van Os (Netherlands) in the list of authors. This is especially true of studies where the relationship appears unidirectional. Not to accuse them of anything, of course, but the idea that the relationship is causal happens to be a pet theory they have both shared for nearly a decade. Hmmmm.

If cannabis really did cause cases of schizophrenia and other persistent psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred, then the massive increase in cannabis use (by orders of magnitude) from the early 1960s to the present should have been followed by at least a modest increase in the prevalence and incidence of such disorders in the long run. However, studies in both the UK and Australia have shown that this did not in fact occur, despite the British tabloids repeatedly claiming otherwise. In most Western countries, rates of psychosis have generally been stable or declining in spite of massive increases in cannabis use, and countries with very low use of cannabis (such as Sweden and Japan) do not have a significantly lower prevelance of psychotic disorders than countries with very high use (such as Canada and the USA). Nor is there any hard evidence that the Netherlands has become any crazier since their policy of quasi-legalization began in 1976. Thus, there is a major hole in the theory of causality that is rather difficult to explain away.

So what do we know for certain at this point? It is technically true that cannabis, especially when taken at very high doses, may cause a transient "toxic psychosis" and/or delirium in some people, albeit rarely. It is also true that at least some (but not all) people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (including the early stages) are particularly prone to bad reactions and can see exacerbations of their symptoms when using the drug, and those individuals should thus avoid it.  But the same can be said about several other licit and illicit subtances, even caffeine (including, but not limited to, energy drinks). And contrary to what the alcohol supremacists would like to believe, there is also such a thing as alcohol-induced psychosis, which can sometimes be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. In addition, one should also bear in mind that there is more than one active ingredient in cannabis--while THC in isolation can produce transient anxiety and quasi-psychotic symptoms in some people, another component (cannabidiol) appears to actually have anti-psychotic and anti-anxiety effects, essentially blocking much of the adverse effects of THC. These two cannabinoids (and others) vary widely among the numerous strains of cannabis, with some strains having lots of one and negligible amounts of the others, and other strains being more balanced. But thanks to prohibition, it ends up pretty much being a guessing game.

Even if the putative link between cannabis and schizophrenia were somehow truly causal, which we doubt, it hardly follows that keeping cannabis illegal (and thus unregulated) is the best public policy response. In fact, a study using a mathematical model that assumes a causal relationship (of a magnitude similar to most of the studies that found an association) predicts that literally several thousand people would have to be prevented from using cannabis in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia! Even somehow making cannabis completely disappear tomorrow would, at best, lead to 10% fewer cases eventually. Not only is such a Herculean task practically impossible, it would be a utilitarian's worst nightmare. The social costs of prohibition is far higher than the social costs of cannabis, and the latter are also lower than the social costs of alcohol and tobacco, even on a per-user basis. It is thus far better to legalize, tax and regulate it than it is to prohibit it (and enrich violent criminals) for the ostensible purpose of protecting a small percentage of the population from themselves.

While we do not encourage anyone to use cannabis or any other psychoactive substance, the TSAP unequivocally supports legalization of cannabis, and taxation and regulation in a manner similar to how alcohol and tobacco are treated in most of the Western world. As we have said before, we are not a pro-drugs party, but rather pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. In a free society, our bodies (and minds) do not belong to the Almighty State, regardless of whether the state provides anything for the people. What we find most fascinating is how cannabis seems to cause anxiety, panic, paranoia, and psychosis in those who DON'T use it--especially among politicians.

We have had enough Reefer Madness for one century already. Its time for some "Reefer Sanity" for the 21st century.

State of the Planet Address

2011-01-26T17:53:00.000-08:00

On January 25, 2011, the President gave his annual State of the Union Address. The TSAP believes we should start a new tradition--the State of the Planet Address. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So take off your rose-colored glasses and read on:

Our planet is in grave danger. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. And in 2010, we had the worst oil spill in the entire history of the world, leaving widespread and severe environmental damage in its wake that will persist for years to come.

None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towars the planet has to end.

While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.

Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.

The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. Every dollar raised will be used this way without exception. Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this embedded tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.

Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress".

We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from the plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.

But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate to 1.5-1.9 to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but we do not support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). But the current tax and benefit incentives that reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.

Third-Hand Smoke Redux

2011-01-26T13:09:00.000-08:00

A year ago, in a previous post, we discussed the relatively new and unfounded scares about third-hand smoke. This concept is typically defined as the residue from tobacco smoke that sticks to various surfaces, including the smokers themselves. We have warned that this bogus scare may lead to frivolous lawsuits and further loss of civil liberties in the future, and expressed great concern about such prospects. Thus, we had hoped the issue would go away, but apparently it did not.

One recent study found that tobacco smoke residue on cellulose substrates (to mimic fabric surfaces) has the potential to "desorb" from such substrates upon exposure to ozone (O3), and become airborne in the future. However, even the researchers admit that this would requires much lower levels of humidity and much higher levels of ozone that would be found in a typical home. Perhaps on an airplane this may be true, due to dry cabin air and stratospheric ozone, but smoking is already banned on American airplanes. This was similar to another study from last year that found that the pollutant nitrous acid (HONO) can react with nicotine to form small amounts of carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). OOOOOO....be very, very afraid! However, what the media didn't report was that the amount of HONO used was an order of magnitude higher than would be encountered in a typical home--if your levels are that high, that in itself is a health hazard, and it often indicates the presence of toxic NO and NO2 as well. Bottom line: neither study demonstrated that so-called third-hand smoke poses a practically significant health hazard under non-extreme circumstances, if even at all. And it is junk science to claim otherwise.

But what about the new study that found that toxins supposedly linger in a building long after a smoker moves out? Again, no proof of any actual health hazard, just the observation that surfaces tested positive for nicotine, and the urine of new nonsmoking residents tested positive for cotinine (a nicotine metabolite), the latter of which may very well be confounded. So what? It's the dose that makes the poison, and there's a safe level for everything, even arsenic and (gasp!) radiation. And the actual amounts of nicotine and cotinine were quite small indeed, and not at levels proven to be hazardous. In fact, even the authors readily admit that "this study was not designed to investigate health outcomes of exposure"--despite the media's insinuations otherwise.

Another study apparently found that even when smoking occurs in an unventilated room and surfaces are vigorously agitated the following day, the concentration of "third-hand smoke" particles that do become airborne is 100 times lower than second-hand smoke, which itself is more dilute than first-hand smoke. Thus, even anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel considers the alleged risk from such exposure to be theoretical rather than practical, and that there ought to be no concern at all about the residues carried on the clothing of smokers after smoking outdoors. Finally, some sanity for once!

And furthermore, I suggest all the true believers take a look at the following links:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1211/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1278/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.910/healthissue_detail.asp
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

As for further erosion of civil rights and liberties, It appears our fears may very well come true if our society lets them. For example, the town of Great Neck, NY just recently banned outdoor smoking on the sidewalks, punishable by a whopping $1000 fine. Worse still, the state of Maine is actually considering a bill that will deny medical treatment (through Medicaid) to smokers, despite the fact that smokers actually save society money (on balance) by dying earlier than nonsmokers. Talk about playing God--should also we deny medical treatment to obese people, or anyone else some people deem deficient in character?

The TSAP is definitely NOT pro-smoking or pro-tobacco, and we hate the merchants of death known as tobacco companies, who willfully lied for decades about the dangers of their products and who continue to add harmful adulterants to this day. We believe that smoking or otherwise using any form of tobacco (all-natural or otherwise) is quite foolish given what we know today. But we fully support the right of all legal adults to choose pleasure over longevity, as long as they do not endanger nonconsenting others more than the minimum. Our society's love affair with the chimera of a no-risk society is a farce, plain and simple. Life is a risk, and there will be many things in this world you don't like. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. Remember that this is America, the land of the free, not Soviet Russia or North Korea. Those that can't handle living in a free society should take advantage of the best freedom we can offer you--the freedom to leave.

Thus, we recommend that governments do the following:

Federal

Ban the use of radioactive fertilizers completely, period
Ban the use of any harmful additives or pesticides for tobacco products, and require all new additives (if any) to be FDA-approved
Require full disclosure of ingredients in tobacco products on the package
Require all cigarettes to be fire-safe, like many states already do
Set a national price floor of $5 per pack ($50 per carton) to discourage interstate smuggling, and index the federal tobacco tax to inflation
End all tobacco farming subsidies
Ban workplace discrimination for smoking on one's own time, or any other lifestyle choice that does not adversely affect one's job or directly harm nonconsenting others

State and local

Repeal all outdoor smoking bans, and pre-empt any future ones
Repeal smoking bans in bars, and let the owners decide for themselves
Repeal any smoking bans in residences, or at least set aside some apartments (and dorms) that do allow smoking
Set (and enforce) reasonable air quality standards for bars and restaurants that must be met, smoking or not
Give tax credits for the purchase of high-tech ventilation and air-cleaning equipment to bars and restaurants
Repeal smoking bans in private clubs
Maintain existing indoor smoking bans in areas other than bars and residences

At all levels

Throw any lawsuit related to "third-hand smoke" out of court, and allow such plaintiffs to be countersued for filing a frivolous lawsuit
Do not interfere with parental rights relating to smoking (within reason)
Do not ban e-cigarettes, snus, or other smokeless tobacco products, and do not restrict them more severely than cigarettes
Divest from Big Tobacco completely
Increase honest anti-tobacco education programs
Quit harassing smokers--their taxes pay your salary

Final thought: whenever anyone says "there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke (or its residue)", just replace the word "tobacco" with "campfire" or "barbecue". Now do you see how absurd it sounds?

What to Do about the Debt?

2011-01-24T09:43:00.000-08:00

The national debt (currently $14 trillion and growing) is about to reach its ceiling of $14.3 trillion, probably by March 31 of this year. Some, like the President, say we must raise the debt ceiling or risk defaulting, the latter of which would be catastrophic. Others, like many Republicans, say that we should not raise the ceiling, thus forcing the government to cut spending. Still others believe America is doomed either way. So what's the truth?

Well, first of all, not raising the ceiling is not the same thing as defaulting, and such a choice is a false dichotomy. Not raising the ceiling simply means we can't increase our rate of borrowing. If we hit the ceiling on March 31, the government will still have several more months before we actually run the risk of default. The Feral Reserve has many weapons in its arsenal to stave off a crisis temporarily. That will buy some time for further debate in Congress on what to ultimately do. However, we must never default--it is simply not an option. On the other hand, our current practice of continually increasing the debt is unsustainable.

It is interesting how the Republicans have suddenly become so hawkish about the debt, considering how they have been running up massive deficits since Reagan, and thus how most of the debt (including interest, which we simply borrow even more to pay) can be traced to Reagan and both Bushes. You know, the same borrow-and-spend "conservatives" who cut taxes on the rich while increasing "defense" (read: war) spending as well as general government waste. And today's Republicans are the same ones who held unemployment benefits hostage to force the Democrats to extend the tax cuts on the rich, further worsening our debt problem. The current brinksmanship on the debt ceiling is most likely just yet another way to extract more concessions out of the Democrats. The Republicans most likely will accept a ceiling increase in exchange for what they want.

We at the TSAP believe that the best course of action is to not raise the ceiling, and force Congress to raise taxes and cut spending. But it has to be done right. The best way to raise taxes is to end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of the population, create a new 50% bracket at $1 million, equalize the dividend tax with the tax on regular income, and close as many tax loopholes as possible ASAP. (No, that will not destroy jobs--we have already debunked that claim.) When the economy improves, taxes on the lower 98% should also be restored to their 2000 levels, and/or be replaced with a VAT. Tariffs on foreign goods need to be raised as well, which will also protect American jobs. Other taxes that should be raised are the gas tax, the alcohol taxes, and the tobacco taxes--and perhaps new excise taxes should be created on other vices. As for spending, the best way to cut that is to cut defense spending by half over the next 5-10 years, close unnecessary foreign bases, accelerate withdrawal from Iraq, and completely pull out of Afghanistan no later than 2012. Waste should be eliminated, the line-item veto should be restored, and the Read the Bills Act must be passed. No more bailouts, ever. In the longer term, Social Security and Medicare do indeed need to be reformed, but not jettisoned or privatized like in the Republican fantasy world. And raiding the Social Security Trust Fund should be banned entirely.

So if the Republicans want to not raise the ceiling, fine. But the Democrats should not concede, but rather call their bluff and demand that the Republicans agree to higher taxes on the wealthy and cuts to "defense" spending and Republican waste, or else the ceiling will be raised to $15 trillion (but no higher). Turnabout is fair play--after all, the Republicans were the ones who demanded the tax cut extensions by holding unemployment benefits hostage.

Failing all that, if the ceiling is eventually raised, any such raise should be conditional on passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You know, the very same amendment that Bush II claimed to support when he first ran for President in 2000. In other words, from 2012 onward, no more deficits, only surpluses. Then maybe we can actually start paying down our ludicrously high national debt.

Reflections on the Tuscon Shooting

2011-01-19T12:16:00.000-08:00

On January 8, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tuscon, AZ, along with several other people. While she survived after being shot in the head, and appears to be recovering fairly well, six other people unfortunately died, including a child. Out of respect, the TSAP has (until now) avoided making any posts about the Tuscon massacre or any issues related to it since we first learned about it.

We extend our deepest condolences to all the victims of this horrible and senseless act of violence, along with their families. As we have stated before, the TSAP uneqivocally condemns all forms of violence, political or otherwise, except for immediate self-defense. It destroys the fabric of society and often leads to more violence. Regardless of one's political persuasion, that fact should be clear to all.

What can we learn from this tragedy? Well, we know that the alleged shooter (whose name we refuse to mention) was apparently mentally ill. This fact can be gleaned from his history of uncontrolled outbursts in class and bizarre YouTube videos. We know that he was gung-ho about killing Giffords for quite some time, and that the shooting was premeditated rather than a crime of passion. We know he was neither left-wing nor right-wing, but was an ardent anti-goverment conspiracy theorist, and possibly a bigot as well. We know that he was an ex-drug user who apparently got worse mentally after quitting, and committed the massacre after being clean and sober for over two years. We know that he got the gun legally and passed the background check, but probably could have gotten one fairly easily even if had he been denied, due to the widespread availability of illegal guns (especially in major cities like Tuscon). We know that multiple-victim public shootings are relatively rare events, and interestingly are even rarer and typically less severe in jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons (such as Arizona). And that many such shootings, such as Virginia Tech (and all other school shootings in America since 1995) occur in so-called "gun-free zones". We know that nearly half of these shooters have been formally diagnosed with a severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia), and we also know that our country's mental health care system is seriously broken and underfunded thanks to ignorance and decades of budget cuts.

Unfortunately, politics can get nasty rather quickly after something like this happens, and the rancor can easily cloud one's judgment. We at the TSAP strongly discourage any sort of overreaction to this tragedy, including the passage of knee-jerk legislation that will most likely do more harm than good. And we also support President Obama's call for increased civility in the wake of this tragedy.

The Fluoridation Controversy Revisited

2011-01-10T09:37:00.000-08:00

On January 7, 2011, for the first time in nearly half a century, the federal government has reviewed recommended fluoride levels in drinking water, and announced that they may recommend reducing (but not eliminating) such levels. Apparently, kids are getting too much fluoride, as evidenced by the significant increase in dental fluorosis (tooth mottling) in teens since the 1980s. Which should come as no surprise, since fluoride is found not just in drinking water, but also in toothpaste, some vitamin supplements, tea, processed foods and soft drinks made with fluoride-containing water, some bottled waters, and even the air we breathe.

Water fluoridation began in earnest in the early 1950s, after first being tried in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Today, the majority of communities in the United States currently fluoridate their water. However, most European countries currently do not, and most of those that once did have banned the practice decades ago due to safety concerns. While it is true that tooth decay rates have declined in the US since fluoridation was adopted, similar or even faster declines have been observed in countries that do not fluoridate.  Also, declines often began before fluoridation, and continued after stopping it. Thus, the secular decline in tooth decay was most likely due to an increase in the use of fluoride toothpaste as well as improvements in general nutrition, as opposed to water fluoridation. Which makes perfect sense, since it is now known that the benefits of fluoride are topical rather than systemic.

As for the potential risks associated with fluoridation, the statements by proponents of the practice have not been particularly reassuring.   Fluoride has been linked to several adverse health effects, some scarier than others. While the jury is still out on many of these effects, evidence has been mounting for quite some time, and even the relatively weak version of the precautionary principle embodied in the Rio Declaration would seem to preclude continuation of deliberate water fluoridation in any amount.

There are also ethical issues to consider.   Mass-medicating the whole population with uncontrolled doses of a potentially hazardous substance without informed consent is generally viewed as violating basic biomedical ethical principles, to say nothing of civil liberties issues.

Since our founding in 2009, the TSAP has generally been neutral on the issue of water fluoridation.   However, in light of both past and recent evidence, we now recommend that a complete moratorium on the practice be put in place as a precautionary measure while the issue is studied further.

Elites Get Their Way Yet Again, Deficit (and Debt) Will Soar

2010-12-17T09:02:00.000-08:00

It's official. The tax cut extension deal has passed.

What does this mean? It means all of the Bush tax cuts will remain another two years for all brackets, including the ultra-rich. In exchange, the unemployment benefits extension will be extended an additional year, and the payroll tax for Social Security will also be temporarily reduced. The price tag for all of this? $858 billion dollars. And with no spending cuts to offset it. Just what we need, more deficits.

How did such an asinine "compromise" even pass in the first place? The Democrats, including President Obama, wanted to let all the tax cuts remain for everyone except for those in the top two brackets (the top 2%). Which makes sense given the bad economy and the already soaring deficits. But the Republicans in Congress threatened to hold hostage any extension in unemployment benefits (obviously the worst time to do so) if the tax cuts on the top 2% were allowed to expire. That alone shows who the Republicans really care about above all else, regardless of who they pay lip service to.

Thus the elites got their way yet again, and future generations will have to pay for their mistakes.

Banks Gone Wild, Again

2010-11-04T19:18:00.000-07:00

The Feral Reserve is at it again. They have decided to create $600 billion to $1 trillion completely out of thin air. Gold and oil are on the rise again.

Of course, all that money is going to the banks, and will be concentrated among the super-rich at the top. While the TSAP does not advocate creating money ex nihilo, if it must happen, it should be distributed to the people. $600 billion would provide nearly $2000 to every man, woman, and child in the USA, or alternatively nearly $100 to every man, woman, and child in the entire world. Would that boost consumer spending, and thus the economy? You bet it will--but then comes the inflation surprise a few months later, of course.

However, no amount of prinitng funny money got Japan out of their "lost decade" following the Nikkei crash of 1990, a crash spurred on by the same factors as our 2008 stock market crash (housing and credit bubbles). Japan's prolonged deflationary recession lasted until 2003, a full 13 years. And they still never fully recovered, unfortunately, despite a significant rebound from 2003-2007 before the current financial crisis and recession. But I guess a deflationary recession is better than an inflationary depression.

We're "turning Japanese," all right. Just not in a good way.

California Proposition 19: FAIL

2010-11-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, it seems that "California Dreaming" did NOT become a reality in 2010 like we had hoped. Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized, taxed, and regulated cannabis in California lost 46% to 54%. Close, but no cigar (or doobie).

However, this is still closer than any comparable initiative has ever come in history, and the debate it ignited will certainly NOT die anytime soon. The pro-legalization side is now gearing up for 2012, when similar initiatives have a better chance of passing.

The 2010 election was a major disappointment in general. In nearly all states, the Repugnicans won (while the TSAP does not like either major party, we generally feel that, as a rule, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils). California was one of the few exceptions to this trend. But at least some of the leftovers were thrown out, and many of the losing Democrat incumbents were spineless jellyfish anyway.

So why did Prop 19 fail? It was doing great in the polls up until early October, and it seemed like a sure thing, with 52% in favor. But then the Governator took some of the wind out of its sails by signing into law Senate Bill 1449, effective January 1, which decriminalized (not legalized) possession of less than an ounce of ganja to a mere violation, making it a $100 fine with no court appearance or criminal record. It was formerly a misdemeanor, though the fine was the same. Next, the federal Drug Czar and the Attorney General were threatening to vigorously enforce the federal laws against cannabis if it passes, potentially upending the "truce" over medical cannabis since early 2009. Finally, the "No" side geared up and used ridiculous scare tactics in their ads, which unfortunately worked due to voter ignorance as well as vague language in certain parts of the initiative's text. And the two big sugar daddies for the "Yes" campaign (billionaires George Soros and Peter B. Lewis) did not donate anything until a week or two before election day, essentially too late.

One can only hope that things will go differently in 2012, when the demographics will be more favorable. But just don't number it Prop 19 again--it appears to be bad luck, just like it was in 1972. And any unnecessary or vague language in the initiative that appears to be the least bit overreaching should be nixed at once, as it appears to be "one toke over the line," so to speak.

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

UPDATE: After much vote tallying for the past ten days, it turned out that Arizona's Proposition 203 narrowly passed as of November 14. This makes Arizona the latest state to legalize medical cannabis.

Throw Out the Leftovers!

2010-10-10T15:36:00.000-07:00

Election day (November 2) is less than a month away. And it will be a pretty interesting day for sure.

Despite it being an "off-year" in terms of presidential elections, it is still just as important due to the plethora of Congressional seats up for grabs during this midterm election. There are 37 Senate seats at stake, along with all 435 House seats.

The TSAP is very displeased with the current do-nothing 111th Congress. From Iraq/Afghanistan to healthcare deform to energy policy to the economy to the environment, nearly all members have obsequiously shirked their voter-given responsibilities and did precisely what the big-money special interests have told them to do. Spineless Democrats and crazy Republicans are the majority of the incumbents. Wimps to the left of me, crazies to the right--stuck in the middle with you. We need to vote out all (or nearly all) the incumbents, except perhaps when the only challenger is a teabagger or some other right-wing extremist. Throw out the leftovers in November.

State elections are also going to be important this time. Not only are there several incumbents that need replacing ASAP, there are also several ballot initiatives in quite a few states. The most notable of these initiatives is California Proposition 19, which would fully legalize cannabis in California if it passes. Most polls have been favorable so far, but it will be close, and every single vote will count. We have discussed this initiative in previous posts, and while we acknowledge that there are a few flaws, it is without a doubt the right thing to do. And any wrinkles can be ironed out by the legislature after it passes. If it passes, it will advance the legalization cause by 20 years, while if it fails, it will set the cause back 10 years. Other initiatives include ones related to medical cannabis in a few other states (Arizona, South Dakota, Oregon), as well as several more mundane ones such as those relating to taxes and budgets.

I tell you this: no eternal reward can forgive us now for wasting the dawn.

UPDATE: Most of the latest Prop 19 polls, including the mid-October one, show that the "yes on 19" side is still clearly winning, while the early October one that was losing was most likely just an aberration or heavily biased. One should note that the only losing ones thus far have been ones using live interviewers, while automated polls have been winning or tied--probably a reverse Bradley effect. Also, take a look at a new report that shows what a failure the war on cannabis has been.

Misery Loves Company (And Likes 'Em Young)

2010-09-01T15:51:00.000-07:00

Most people have heard of a concept called the misery index. Coined in the 1970s, this index is simply the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. It is meant to emphasize that there are often trade-offs between inflation and unemployment, and that both generally increase the level of misery most people. The misery index for July 2010, for example, is 10.74. This is unfavorable of course, but it is still only half as large as its record high of 21.98 in June 1980. That is because overall inflation has been either low or negative for most of the current recession, in contrast to the double-digit inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, many consider this number to be an underestimate. The Huffington Post has come up with an alternative measure called the Real Misery Index. Instead of the "normal" unemployment number, they use U6, which additionally includes discouraged workers and underemployed workers. Also, instead of general inflation, they focus on the inflation rate of food, gasoline, and medical costs. In addition, they also add the year-over-year percent changes in credit card delinquencies, housing prices, food stamp participation, and home equity loan deficiencies, giving equal weight to all seven metrics used. They found that the Real Misery Index in April 2010 was the highest it has been since 1984, and much higher than the 1991 and 2001 recessions, despite the "normal" misery index of those recessions being comparable to the current one.

But even this does not tell the whole story. Some age groups have fared considerably worse than the rest of the population, most notably young people. Allow us to coin yet another index, the Youth Misery Index. We calculate this to be the sum of the age 16-24 unemployment rate (currently at a record high of 19.1%) and the equally-weighted average inflation rate of the following things most relevant to this age group: food/beverages (0.7%), gasoline (3.9%), medical costs (3.5%), rent (0.0%), and college tuition/fees (6.9%). The result for June 2010 is a staggering 22.1, twice as high as the general misery index, and that is just using the "normal" unemployment numbers. Unfortunately, we were unable to find age-specific U6 data. But if one were to calculate the Youth Misery Index using the 16-19 year old unemployment rate, which is even higher, it would be a whopping 29.1, and a mind-numbing 43.6 for black teens alone. Clearly, our economy is in bad shape, and the misery is not shared anywhere close to equally.

Some folks (like the restaurant industry, who have a vested interest in keeping wages low) like to claim that the raising of the federal minimum wage in 2007-2009 from $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr caused, or at least exacerbated, the increase in teen unemployment during this period. However, this assertion is quite specious when one considers that teen unemployment also skyrocketed during the previous recession, and failed to return back to its 2000 level despite several years of the recovery. During this time, there was no hike in the minimum wage, and the inflation-adjusted minimum wage actually declined, as it had for decades before, reaching a 60-year low in 2007. The all-time peak was in 1968, when it was about $9.50/hr in today's dollars, and unemployment (for both teens and adults) was very low, essentially "full employment". A better explanation for the surge in teen unemployment, besides the general effects of the recession, is that the least skilled workers (such as most teens) are always the first on the chopping block when the economy goes sour. That's simply a given in the dog-eat-dog world of American capitalism. Also, all those adults who were laid off from better jobs now needed to take the low-wage jobs that teens typically hold, effectively crowding them out. No surprises there, unfortunately. As for the apparent secular trend in teen unemployment, this could be due to increased outsourcing/offshoring, as well as rampant illegal immigration--both factors which were much lower just a few decades ago. Or perhaps it could be due to the wholesale disinvestment in the young by the ruling Baby Boomers, who seem to forget that the same unemployed and underemployed youth they throw under the bus are the ones who will be paying for their retirement in the coming decades. In any case, it looks like Funkadelic was right after all when he said that America eats its young.

Most interestingly of all, crime rates did not skyrocket during the current recession as would normally be predicted from the misery index, with which crime is highly correlated. In fact, they plummeted, with the homicide rate reaching a 50-year low in 2009. Reasons for this are not entirely clear, but it may have something to do with the decline of an old villain that has been notorious in among public health experts for decades.

Proposition 8 Overturned at Last

2010-08-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, California's infamous Proposition 8 (the one that re-banned gay marriage) was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court. Thus, at least for now, gay marriage is once again legal in the great state of California. However, the ruling will unfortunately be appealed, and apparently no new gay marriages are supposed to be performed in the state during the appeal process. It is far from certain what the Supreme Court will do.

We at the True Spirit of America Party applaud the recent ruling, and hope that the Supreme Court soon rules against Prop 8 as well. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the constitutional thing to do. Since the 14th Amendment was written, the overwhelming lack of equal protection under the law given to same-sex couples has been hiding in plain sight all along. When equal protection is denied for any reason, that requires real justification (not simply moral disapproval) to be constitutional, something the anti-gay folks have failed to show. There is zero hard evidence that allowing gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage or Western Civilization, whatever that means. Nor is there evidence of any other sort of harm from recognizing such unions. And all purely religious arguments against it ought to be tossed out as well due to separation of church and state. Thus, there is no good reason to ban gay marriage, especially not in 2010 given all that we know now. It's called evolution, which is something the haters should try sometime.

Will California Dreaming Become a Reality?

2010-07-01T09:05:00.000-07:00

Looks like California has put an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis on the ballot for November 2010. It now has a number: Proposition 19 (the same number as the last time a legalization initiative was put on the ballot, in 1972). The initiative, though somewhat flawed, has a decent chance of passing. A whopping 56% of Californians support legalization, as do 53% of Americans overall, the highest in US history, though more recent polls have shown varying results. And the state needs something to help plug their monstrous budget deficit--they are technically bankrupt. Will "California Dreaming" finally become a reality? We predict it will pass in 2010 since (unlike in 1972) they finally have a critical mass of supporters. If any state can do it, California can. But it will be a very close vote, with younger voters (especially under 25) being crucial to its passage.

America currently arrests over 800,000 people for pot each year, the majority of which are for possession, a victimless crime. And it costs a ludicrous amount of money to do so. The number of people arrested for destroying the Gulf of Mexico via the oil spill? A big fat ZERO.

Recently, the California chapter of the NAACP has signed on as a supporter of Prop 19. This is primarily because blacks are arrested at twice (or triple or even quadruple in some areas) the rate of whites for cannabis offenses, despite being less likely to toke up. Clearly, blacks (and Latinos) are being targeted by the Drug Warriors, while whites who get busted are little more than collateral damage. And let's not forget the racist history of how cannabis prohibition came to pass, with the first such laws aimed at Mexicans and later at blacks.

Opponents of the bill include the usual suspects: MADD, police organizations, several church groups, and anti-drug organizations. The feds can be considered in opposition as well. There is probably not much that will convince the staunchest opponents to see the light. However, not all cops are against legalization--there is even an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) who sees what a failure drug prohibition has been and the harm it has caused. They know that prohibition has brought only death, destruction, violence, corruption, and more dangerous drugs, and that it needs to end as soon as possible.

We at the TSAP endorse the initiative as a starting point, but notes that it is far from perfect. For example, the age limit is 21 rather than 18, and several provisions appear to conflict somewhat with the Compassionate Use Act's protections of medical cannabis patients. We believe that all legal adults (18 and over) have the right to do what they want to their own bodies as long as it does not harm others. But those "wrinkles" can be ironed out later. The sooner we legalize, the better. And we hope other states will join California as well (already Oregon and Washington are considering it). If enough states do so, that will eventually force the feds to reconsider and perhaps legalize at the federal level. Plus, legalization would deal a major death blow to the drug cartels that terrorize Mexico and increasingly the United States as well.

As we stated before, we predict success, albeit by a narrow margin. That is, as long as there is no "October Surprise" to scare the voters into voting no. We cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand, as the anti-cannabis lobby (as well as the DEA and ONDCP) has been known to use junk science to scare people in the past. Alaska and Nevada know this all too well.

The June Suprise, if one wishes to call it that, unsurprisingly was a bogus study that purported to show that traffic fatalities would skyrocket if cannabis was legalized, based loosely on data from 2004-2008, when California expanded its medical cannabis program that was first enacted in 1996. However, this is easily debunked when you consider that, whether you use 1995, 1996, 2003, or 2004 as the base year, California's overall traffic fatalities per VMT actually declined, and at a faster rate than the nation as a whole. Ditto for self-reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs as a whole from 2002-2009. So much for being a menace to society.

Oh, but what about the children? As for teen use of cannabis, student surveys show that such use also declined since 1996 in California, again at a faster rate than the nation as a whole despite legalizing medical use (even for patients who are under 21). Ditto for most other states that also legalized it. So much for sending the wrong message.

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

To all those who live in California (or any other state with legalization or medicalization initiatives on the ballot), especially those under 30: Get out there and rock the vote this November!

AND NOW FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

Kids, talk to your parents. Show them the following.

This is your country:

This is DrugWar:

This is your country on DrugWar:

Any questions?

Drill, Baby Drill..........Or Not

2010-05-25T10:39:00.000-07:00

With the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, possibly brought to you by Halliburton, turning out to be worse than we thought, the idea of expanding even more offshore oil drilling (aka "Drill, Baby, Drill!") has come under fire recently. For example, lax oversight by U.S. regulators with improper ties to the oil industry has been shown in a new, rather disturbing report to be a problem with such drilling in general. Numerous violations have been noted between 2000 and 2008, when many of the rigs were constructed and maintained, and was likely a contributing factor to the disaster. We all know whose administration was in power at that time, but it is very likely that similar violations also occurred before and after those years as well.

Should we abandon offshore drilling altogether, or at least not expand it? Probably not. If we don't get it, you know China will--do we really want that? While we need to end our addiction to oil and transition to renewable energy in the long term, we still need oil in the short and medium term. Crazy as it sounds, we simply cannot complete the transition to sustainability without it. And the withdrawal syndrome would be nothing short of fatal for millions of people. Unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of the gasoline in our tanks is made from foreign oil, with the lion's share of that from the Middle East, including rather hostile regimes that often fund terrorism. Wars are fought over it. We might as well be filling up our gas tanks with the blood of innocent civilians. And coal is inherently filthy--there is no such thing as "clean coal," at least not when it is burned directly like we do now. So we need more practical solutions.

We need to engage in enhanced oil recovery and continue oil exploration on our own soil, both conventional and non-conventional. We need proper oversight on all aspects of the oil and coal industries from the government, after throwing out all the crooks. But we must not lose sight of the fact that even with that, oil is both dirty and finite. In parallel, we must also greatly expand renewable energy and even (gasp!) nuclear power, and push for better conservation as well. And a properly implemented carbon tax would do exactly that.

The time for dithering over our oil addiction is over. Starting right now.

We Need a War Like We Need a Hole in the Head

2010-04-21T06:29:00.000-07:00

With the US government weighing what to do about Iran's defiance over their growing nuclear program, a top American general appears rather pessimistic about what a military strike on Iran would accomplish. General James Cartwright notes that the US would be unlikely to permanently stop Iran's nuclear program unless we fully occupy the country. Simply striking them would, at best, merely delay the inevitable. At worst, it would likely inflame an already volatile Iran even more in the long run, and galvanize support for the current regime. Thus, the US military has wisely been rather averse to any such attacks on Iran, and remains as such.

All things considered, invading and occupying Iran would most likely be a disaster, one we simply cannot afford to risk. The magnitude (read: number of troops required, and thus the cost in both lives and money) would necessarily be much greater than for the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation. Unlike Iraq, their military has not been softened by twelve years of draconian sanctions and periodic bombings. It may even spiral into WWIII for all we know. The occupation would need to last for at least a decade, perhaps even two. With two other ongoing wars, a massive budget deficit, and numerous other problems in our country, the question remains: where will we get the troops, not to mention the money, to commit to such a massive long-term endeavor?

One wildcard in the whole issue is Israel, currently led by the right-wing hardliner Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. Their government has been saber-rattling for many years now. If they were to launch a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities (very difficult since most are underground), that would be just as bad (for the region at least) as the US doing it. And if we are foolish enough to be dragged into it, either by tacitly (or explicitly) authorizing or joining in after the fact, that may very well be the end of America as we know it. Did you know that Israel currently has about 200 nukes already prepared? Let's not encourage anything of the sort, tacitly or otherwise.

What Iran will do with their nuclear technology remains a mystery. They claim it is for peaceful purposes only, but we can't be too sure about that. That said, it appears that going to war with them would do more harm than good. Thus, the TSAP does not support any sort of strike (or invasion) of Iran unless they attack us first. This is consistent with the party's general foreign policy.

Fortunately, for the near term at least, the government has ruled out any sort of military attack on Iran. However, they are continuing to pursue more sanctions on Iran through the UN Security Council until they agree to stop uranium enrichment.

What's With All These Nuts?

2010-03-31T15:12:00.000-07:00

Ever since President Obama was elected in 2008, the craziest of the crazy appear to be coming out of the woodwork. And though most of them appear to be right-wingers, nuts of all stripes are involved:

The "Birthers," a group of conspiracy theorists who still somehow believes that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and that his birth certificate is a forgery. Looks like there is no convincing these people. Ever notice that nearly all of them are white Southerners? Hmmm.
Numerous folks bought up nearly all available guns and ammo in late 2008 and 2009, for fear that Obama would take them away. (However, this may have actually helped reduce crime in 2009)
A new anti-tax movement calling itself the Tea Party (named after the Boston Tea Party, which was about taxation without representation), nicknamed the "teabaggers," came out whining about taxes and unsustainable deficits while conveniently ignoring what Bush has done. Have they all been in a coma for 8 years? On 9/12/09, the day after the 8th anniversary of 9/11, a massive catch-all protest was held. Sarah Palin now appears to have joined them as well.
Numerous folks crashed Obama's town-hall meetings about healthcare, some openly carrying guns, and Joe Wilson interrupted the President screaming "You lie!" in the middle of a speech.
Effigies of Obama have been hung on numerous occasions by disgruntled protesters. Racial connotations aside, this is quite disturbing.
Tea Party protesters shouted racial slurs at members of the Congressional Black Caucus (including civil-rights hero Rep. John Lewis) and yelled anti-gay slurs at Rep. Barney Frank.
After the passage of the health care deform bill, there have been numerous death threats against those Congressmen who voted for it as well as against IRS employees. Vandalism also occurred.
In April 2009, a troubled immigrant shot up the American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, NY, after losing his job in our supposed "land of opportunity," killing 14 including himself
In May 2009, an anti-abortion zealot shot and killed abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
In June 2009, a white supremacist opened fire in the Holocaust Museum in DC, killing a security guard.
In November 2009, an Army psychiatrist who did not want to be sent to Afghanistan opened fire at the Fort Hood military base, killing 13.
A man with a grudge against the IRS flew a plane into one of its buildings in February.
A lone-wolf conspiracy nut went up to the Pentagon entrance and opened fire, wounding two police officers and ending in him being shot to death by police in March.
Members of a "Christian milita" group that allegedly plotted to kill police and start a violent revolution have been arrested in March.

Despite the overall homicide rate being at a 50-year low, mass shootings of all flavors have risen over the past two decades. And the 2000s decade saw more school shootings (including colleges) than the previous four decades combined, despite less juvenile crime and school violence overall and draconian zero-tolerance policies. And not all the school shooters were young, either.

Connect the dots and you will see that clearly, numerous folks are angry and disaffected (in many, if rather disparate ways) with our country's leadership and the way our country is headed. America appears more divided than ever, and this long predates Obama being elected. It has been percolating for decades and is now coming to a head. The aforementioned cases represent the most extreme tip of the iceberg of hate and division if you will. But what does it all mean? Is it a sign of more problems to come? Or are we as a nation simply in the middle of a great transition, a path to (hopefully) a better nation and world albeit with much turbulence along the way? Only time will tell which answer is correct. But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and wingnut Republicans, it doesn't look very good.

All that being said, regardless of our dislike of the status quo, we at the True Spirit of America Party unequivocally condemn all violence (organized or otherwise) except for immediate self-defense against a known aggressor. And none of the aforementioned violent acts (or plots or threats) can legitimately be called self-defense by that standard (in fact some of these can be considered domestic terrorism). In the long run, such behavior only makes things worse. It destroys the fabric of society and eventually leads to more violence. Regardless of one's political persuasion, that fact should be clear to all.

Healthcare Deform Passes

2010-03-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

The vote that would make or break the healthcare deform bill unfortunately passed. As stated in previous posts, we stand firmly against this bill that amounts to nothing more than a giveaway to the insurance industry, as we believe that it will do more harm than good in both the short and long-term.

There does remain a slew of persistent myths about this bill.  Take a look at this list of myths and their corresponding truths. Universal healthcare, it's not. Equitable, it's not. Affordable for most people, it's not. Cost-saving, it's not. Simple, it's not. And so on.

Unfortunately, the otherwise staunch progressive Dennis Kucinich now supports this bill, even though the already weak public option has been jettisoned. And Obama struck a deal with the anti-abortion Democrats (such as Stupak) to gain the crucial extra votes needed to pass the bill.

The TSAP supports truly universal, single-payer healthcare for all Americans, similar to what currently exists in Canada.  Anything less would be uncivilized. We believe that healthcare is a human right.   This bill, however, is a major step in the wrong direction, and in many ways will be worse than the status quo.

Fortunately, the worst aspect of it (the individual mandate) will not take effect until 2014. You read that right, it's four years from now. Thus, there is technically still time to fix the bill's numerous flaws if Congress wishes. But there is probably a snowball's chance in hell of that happening as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and reactionary Republicans.   Voters this November should take note, and throw out the leftovers.

Otherwise, we can look forward to spiraling healthcare costs, people being forced under penalty of law to pay exorbitant premiums, more bureaucracy, higher taxes, larger budget deficits, and little to show for it all except richer insurance companies and more IRS agents to bully Americans into buying their fundamentally defective product. We're all officially serfs now, except the rich of course. This is an outrage and must be fixed ASAP!

America the Bankrupt

2010-02-27T15:15:00.000-08:00

It's time to tell the truth. Our country is technically bankrupt. If it were a business, it would be considered insolvent since our liabilities exceed our assets.

The facts are clear:

We had a record budget deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2009, and projected to be $1.5 trillion this year.
We have a national debt of $12.4 trillion and growing, which is now 85% of our GDP.
The interest on the debt alone is an average $400 billion per year, and will grow further with the debt.
We have unfunded liabilities of $70 trillion and growing, primarily Social Security and Medicare.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost nearly a trillion since 2001, and that only includes direct and short-term costs.
Many states have record deficits as well.
Much of our national debt is owed to China, Japan, the UK, and South Korea.
Our trade deficit is $40.2, and $20.5 billion with China alone.
We import over 2/3 of our oil, much of it from unfriendly regimes.

So yes, Virginia, we're bankrupt, and have been so for years. Clearly something has to be done, but declaring bankruptcy is not an option. We already did that in 1933, and we can't do it again. Last time, it was done by confiscating everyone's gold, then subsequently getting off the gold standard. This time, it would mean trillions of dollars of Treasury bonds would instantly become worthless junk bonds due to our credit rating going to naught. And those who hold such bonds would lose much of their life savings, to say nothing of the countries that hold them.

We must pay off our national debt, balance the budget, and return to a favorable balance of trade. And we need sound money to back it all up. How do we do it? The following must be done ASAP:

Levy a wealth tax on those with a net worth of $10 million or more, at 15% of net worth, for two years in a row.
Create a new 50% bracket for those who earn $1 million or more per year, and repeal the Bush tax cuts for those who make $200,000 per year or more. And eliminate all loopholes as well.
Bring back the estate tax to pre-Bush levels.
Eliminate the Social Security wage cap entirely, making it a flat tax and not a regressive one, and limit benefits for wealthy retirees.
End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and remove 100% of troops within a year.
Cut the "defense" budget by 50%, and remove our troops from most countries. Maintain armed neutrality with respect to all foreign wars.
Put heavy tariffs on all imports, and tax the hell out of any and all companies who engage in outsourcing/offshoring.
Vote out all incumbents in the 2010 congressional elections who do not support all or most of the above.

In the longer term, there are further things we can and should do:

Replace the income and payroll taxes with a 25% value-added tax (VAT) on virtually everything, with a prebate equal to the tax on basic necessities.
No income tax on those who make below $100,000 per year, but levy 25% on every dollar above $100,000 and 50% on every dollar above $1,000,000, simple and loophole-free.
With the payroll tax replaced by the VAT, have 7% of each paycheck deposited into a personal retirement account. Keep Social Security as a means-tested fallback option.
Stop raiding the Social Security trust fund and using it as a slush fund.
Replace Medicare and Medicaid with single-payer healthcare for all Americans.
Bring back the gold standard, and abolish the Feral Reserve. Let the market set interest rates, and let Congress control the money supply as per the Constitution.
Cut as much government waste as possible.
End the War on Drugs, at least for cannabis, and tax the hell out of any newly legalized substances.
Raise the excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline, and create new ones for other vices.
Create a tax on currency speculation.
Create a "carbon tax and dividend," taxing carbon at the source and giving everyone an equal share of the money collected.
Reduce overpopulation by limiting immigration to the previous year's emigration (about 200,000 people per year) and removing all barriers to birth control and other reproductive health services.

If these things are implemented in fairly short order, we may be able to avert disaster. But if not, we may very well go the way of the Romans. The choice is ours.

Third-Hand Smoke, Third-Rate Science

2010-02-09T09:55:00.000-08:00

The latest media hype over "third-hand smoke" is classic junk science. The actual study did not prove that there was any real health hazard, just that the trace amounts of nicotine left behind on surfaces after smoking can, at least under certain conditions, react with (high levels of) the common pollutant nitrous acid (HONO) to form trace amounts of carcinogens called tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which already exist in cigarette smoke). I can just smell the frivolous lawsuits coming, brought to you by this guy. Look, it's the dose that makes the poison. And, believe it or not, there's a safe level for everything, even (gasp!) radiation.

The truth is, there is ZERO hard evidence that third-hand smoke represents a practically significant health hazard. So relax already. And even the dangers of second-hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated, and can be greatly reduced fairly easily with rational ventilation standards.

How about the oft-repeated claim that recent smoking bans in restaurants and bars have reduced heart attacks? Turns out that they probably did not; a new study using many years of data on workplace smoking bans in the US has found no effect on heart attacks. Ditto when looking at other countries, but that doesn't stop the zealots from promoting these notoriously small-business-killing policies.

Worse, another study found that smoking bans in bars most likely increase drunk driving fatalities. Turns out that nearly all alcoholics smoke, and those who wish to smoke while drinking may drive longer distances to non-ban areas, non-compliant bars, or bars with outdoor seating to simultaneously feed their twin addictions. The size of the effect was 13.44%, which is on par with (but opposite) the effect size of known DUI laws like 0.08 BAC--surprisingly large, but still plausible. While there is obviously no excuse for drunk driving, illiberal laws like these clearly have unintended consequences that negate the supposed benefits.

And now the fanatics want outdoor smoking bans too? Hey, I don't see these anti-smoking zealots giving up their cars. Yet we know that pollution from motorized vehicles is bad for us, bad for the planet, and not so easy to escape. But drivers haven't become social pariahs the way smokers have. And this junk science about third-hand smoke obviously contributes to this fear and loathing of not just smoking, but smokers. After all, they carry around toxic chemicals (albeit trace amounts) on their clothing, and are thus a menace to society, right? Think of the children! These zealots are so disingenuous they make the tobacco companies look honest.

Funny how the same "concerned citizens" don't make a peep about the government-approved radioactive fertilizers the companies use to grow tobacco--banning the use of those would probably save infinitely more lives than smoking bans of any kind. Ditto for the gazillion adulterants and pesticides that they add with impunity. But God forbid the lives of those evil, wretched smokers are saved--after all, they deserve to die a horrible, painful death, right?

We all know where this is going, and it's not pretty. Some companies have even banned their employees from smoking off the job. Smoke and they won't hire you, refuse to quit and you're fired. Backed up with nicotine metabolite tests in the illiberal tradition of workplace drug testing. Now it looks like obese people are next--lose weight or you're canned. A slippery slope indeed. We all have vices--so you better hope they don't come for you next.

Just wait until smokers are banned from adopting children, or can even lose custody of their natural children. Oh wait--some states already do that, and more still are considering it. Again, based on third-rate junk science. First, they came for the smokers......

The TSAP is NOT pro-smoking, and we hate the merchants of death known as tobacco companies, who willfully lied for decades about the dangers of their products and who continue to add harmful adulterants to this day. We believe that smoking or otherwise using tobacco (all-natural or otherwise) is quite foolish given what we know today. But we fully support the right of all legal adults to choose pleasure over longevity, as long as they do not endanger nonconsenting others more than the minimum. Our society's love affair with the chimera of a no-risk society is a farce, plain and simple. Life is a risk, and there will be many things in this world you don't like. Break out the violin and pass the Kleenex. Those that can't handle living in a free society should take advantage of the best freedom we can offer you--the freedom to leave.

Thus, we recommend that governments do the following:

Federal

Ban the use of radioactive fertilizers completely
Ban the use of any harmful additives or pesticides for tobacco products
Require full disclosure of ingredients in tobacco products on the package
Require all cigarettes to be fire-safe, like many states already do
End workplace discrimination for smoking on one's own time, or any other lifestyle choice that does not adversely affect one's job or directly harm nonconsenting others

State and local

Repeal all outdoor smoking bans, and pre-empt any future ones
Repeal smoking bans in bars, and let the owners decide for themselves
Set (and enforce) reasonable air quality standards for bars and restaurants that must be met, smoking or not
Give tax credits for the purchase of high-tech ventilation and air-cleaning equipment to bars and restaurants
Repeal smoking bans in private clubs

At all levels

Throw any lawsuit related to "third-hand smoke" out of court
Do not interfere with parental rights relating to smoking (within reason)
Do not ban e-cigarettes, snus, or other smokeless tobacco products
Divest from Big Tobacco
Quit harassing smokers--their taxes pay your salary

Corporations are People Too?

2010-01-31T19:59:00.000-08:00

In a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they essentially ruled the following:

Corporations = people

Money = speech

And thus, corporations were granted unrestricted rights to influence elections via financing political campaigns. The court's majority opinion claimed that the First Amendment protected such spending as "free speech."

The first one was implied from a largely accidental event: in Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad (1886), the court's (clerical) Recorder, wrote in his personal commentary that the Chief Justice said that all the Justices agreed that corporations were persons. This "headnote" had no legal standing, and but future jurists would repeatedly accept it as precedent nonetheless. And thus corporations were able to claim Fourteenth (and eventually even First) Amendment protections on the basis of a remark in passing (obiter dictum) about the outcome of what would have otherwise merely been an obscure taxation case.

The second one is just downright absurd. Money is not speech--it is a medium of exchange that also doubles as a form of power. Such a loose and ambiguous definition of "speech" could potentially be used to invalidate so many other laws, such as minimum wage and those laws that regulate how tall a building is, in the name of the First Amendment. Most relevant to elections, it is known that 9 times out of 10, the candidate who spends the most money wins. It is clearly anti-democratic for ultra-rich corporations (or individuals) to use their vast wealth to stack the deck (and drown out the competition) for the candidates that favor their own interests. In other words, one dollar = one vote. That is how plutocracies, not democracies, operate.

As for why corporations ought not to be considered persons, I believe that Buckminster Fuller said it best:

"Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socio-economic ploys -- legally enacted game-playing -- agreed upon only between overwhelmingly powerful socio-economic individuals and by them imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members."

Furthermore, corporations (under the current system) simply don't have the same responsibilities as citizens--in practice they are only legally responsible to their shareholders. They are completely amoral entities. And they don't die like people inevitably do--like vampires, they are immortal unless killed. And if they do become "too big to fail" and take suicidal risks, they are bailed out with taxpayer money. Nevermind that 25% of America's largest corporations pay essentially no income tax despite sales in the trillions. Of all American corporations as a whole, it was more like 2/3 paid zilch from 1998-2005. ExxonMobil, one of the largest, paid zero in 2009. Due to their massive influence, corporations (if big enough) can even, quite literally, get away with murder (think toxic waste and dangerously defective products), not to mention highway robbery. Thus, lifeless corporations are not entitled to natural rights that living, breathing human beings enjoy.

The founders would not likely have supported this outrageous decision, and Jefferson (you know, the one who wrote the First Amendment) is probably spinning in his grave as we speak. One thing he hated a great deal was the prospect of corporate monopolies, which by their sheer size were a threat to "we, the people." So much so that his original version of the Bill of Rights contained an amendment (which never passed) to prohibit "monopolies in commerce." In addition, Thomas Paine reasoned that any institution created and composed of humans had to be subordinate to individual people, and this applied not just to governments, but also to churches and corporations. Thus, this original logic was turned on its head by the Supreme Court, a branch of government that the Founders, ironically enough, initially considered to be the "least dangerous" branch.

It goes without saying that the TSAP does not support this perversion of the Constitution either. We believe that election campaigns should be primarily publicly funded, with all candidates getting an equal amount to spend from the government. All candidates get an equal voice, and the source of money is transparent. This is also known as "clean money, clean elections," as opposed to the current dirty system. While we believe that natural persons (not corporations or other organizations) should also be allowed to contribute, it should be capped at one dollar per person. Then it really would be one American, one vote, and third parties (such as the TSAP) will finally have a chance to move beyond the blogosphere and into Washington.

All this raises an important question: if corporations are people, can we now throw them in jail when they commit crimes? That'll be the day!

More Guns, Less Crime in 2009

2010-01-14T19:41:00.000-08:00

Further proof that gun ownership tends to reduce crime rather than increase it is available in last year's crime statistics. Many people were terrified that Obama would take away their guns, so when he was elected in 2008, they went on an immediate gun-buying spree. The number of concealed-carry permits rose as well.

Results? There was a notable decrease in murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and property crime in 2009 despite the severe recession. Usually, crime goes up during recessions. Also, growth in the prison population has slowed to a trickle after more than three straight decades of skyrocketing. While correlation alone cannot prove causality, it is now harder than ever to still cling to the outdated pseudoliberal notion that guns are inherently evil and cause more crime.

Fully upholding the right to bear arms, as guaranteed in the Second Amendment, is not some wingnut fringe idea, but rather part of the True Spirit of America. It amazes me to no end that people who call themselves "liberals" would be against this kind of liberty. For once that is taken away, all rights are up for grabs by the state.

The Ultimate Teachable Moment

2010-01-04T13:18:00.000-08:00

On Christmas Day, 2009, a Nigerian man allegedly attempted to bomb an airliner headed for Detroit. Supposedly, he received training from al-Qaida in Yemen. Fortunately, the plot was foiled, and the man was arrested and charged. But what about the next time such an attack is attempted?

Right-wingers such as Cheney like to castigate Obama for this attack, but let's not forget who dropped the ball on the terrorism issue by taking a detour in Iraq. You guessed it. Let's see: 9/11, anthrax attacks, the Beltway Sniper, Madrid, London, and the numerous attacks on our troops (and civilians) in Iraq and Afghanistan--they all happened under the watch of you know who.

But why Yemen? Aside from being the ancestral homeland of an infamous Saudi terrorist leader named Osama Bin Laden, this extremely poor country is a sort of canary in the coal mine. They are facing severe poverty and water shortages, and their population is one of the fastest growing in the world. Such rapid growth, due to very high birthrates, creates a "bulge" of poor young men who are seen as candidates for terrorist recruiters. And they are (or soon to be) thus the latest failed state, a magnet for terrorists (many of which have been radicalized in Iraq and Afghanistan). So poverty and resource shortages are a huge part of the problem, and not just for Yemen.

What should America do about Yemen? Bombing or invading them does not appear to be a particular wise idea--just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We need more intelligent solutions. Providing financial aid to their government may be a temporary palliative, but the root causes of terrorism and instability also need to be addressed.

Let's not fool ourselves. Al-Qaida has set a trap for us if we send in troops. Let's not take the bait this time around.

Whither Copenhagen?

2009-12-16T11:04:00.000-08:00

As the debate over the possible Copenhagen climate treaty heats up, and the cap-and-trade bill from months ago died in Congress, and news of the Climategate scandal broke, there are more questions than answers about the very important issue of climate change (aka global warming).

First, the TSAP would like to say that, while we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.

That said, there is a right way to address the problem and a wrong way. In fact, there are several wrong ways. A cap-and-trade like the one Congress tried to pass would be unlikely to solve the problem, and would likely generate undesirable side effects. Ditto for what is currently being discussed at Copenhagen to an extent, athough we do need an international treaty of some sort (like we successfully did with the issue of ozone depletion in the 1990s) that is an improvement over the Kyoto Protocol (which we still haven't ratified).

The TSAP endorses a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. Every dollar raised will be used this way without exception. Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this embedded tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention energy waste. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). We also support raising the gasoline tax, but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and including a prebate). And when the Chevy Volt (or something like it) is the predominant car on the road, which we favor, highways should be funded by a per mile driven tax if necessary.

We also support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from the plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.

We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.

But the biggest elephant in the room is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate to 1.5-1.9 to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but we do not support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). But the current tax and benefit incentives that reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem.

Here's a social norms technique for you: 7 out of 10 American women have 2 kids or less. You are American and you are smart. Join the majority.

Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.

More Americans feel we should mind our own business

2009-12-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

A recent poll says that nearly half (49%) of Americans, the highest in 40 years, believe America should "mind its own business" on the international stage. And more of us feel that we should decrease troops in Afghanistan than feel we should increase them. Once again, the government is out of touch with the American people and ignorant of the True Spirit of America.

Some people like to call this stance "isolationism," but that is not entirely accurate. True isolationists (like 19th century Japan) believe in little to no foreign trade as well as no wars, and few Americans fit this mold completely. However, the TSAP, like half of Americans, is sick and tired of overzealous interventionism and imperialism to the neglect of our problems at home. Policing the world (and being the world's sugar daddy) seems to do more harm than good to other countries as well. As for trade, we now have a gargantuan and unsustainable trade deficit, and more and more jobs are being outsourced while our economy is increasingly foreign-owned. Foreign trade is fine, but we need to have a favorable balance of trade if we want to stay strong. Bottom line: we need to take care of our own first and stop meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world. Only then can we avoid the fate of the Romans.

By the way, our national debt is now $12 TRILLION and growing.

Sure, the Afghanistan surge will be a success.....Just ask Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British, or the Russians.

2009-12-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

Obama recently said he will send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and after 18 long months the troops will begin to come home. Begin to come home? We should have begun withdrawing years ago! Let's face it, Afghanistan is a dead end. It has been eight years already. Anything we could feasibly accomplish at this point will be too little, too late. In the long run, any tenuous progress we do make will likely be reversed.

Perhaps if Bush had NOT gone into Iraq and instead sent more troops to Afghanistan, we would have had a chance at winning (albeit a slim one). The side show became the main attraction, and Bush dropped the ball big time. Everything since then has been mere damage control. Or maybe the whole ordeal could have been avoided, and thousands of lives not lost, if we had simply prevented 9/11 (it could have been done). Was it really worth it to invade Afghanistan in the first place? The drug lords sure think so. And the terrorists benefited from the creation of a failed state, as well as a destabilized Pakistan. And the body count of civilians has been staggering.

And what did the American people get out of the deal? Debt! Our national debt is now pushing $12 TRILLION dollars, and the value of the dollar is falling. Gold is $1200 per ounce now, and rising. And so is oil. How we will extricate ourselves (while the current leadership is in power), I really don't know.

If Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union couldn't do it, what makes Obama think he can?

How to Destroy the Mexican Cartels in Five Easy Steps

2009-11-23T11:02:00.000-08:00

Mexico's drug war shows no signs of stopping. And yes, this war is not merely a metaphor but an actual armed conflict. Belligerents include several Mexican cartels as well as the Mexican government, with the United States playing a supportive role to the government. In 2008, over 6000 people died, including numerous civilians, and some of the violence even spilled over to the American side of the border (most notably Phoenix). Ironically, the majority of the cartels' funding comes from drug sales in the United States, to the tune of $23 billion dollars, despite (or rather because of) prohibition of these substances. And the cartels have made significant inroads into most of America as well.

Staying the course will lead to a temporary Pyrrhic victory at best. Let's face it, the War on (some) Drugs is already lost, and is America's first major defeat. A war we lost before it even began. And over two thirds of Americans believe it has been a failure, while less than 10% believe it has been a success. Like alcohol prohibition, only writ very, very large. Crime, corruption, racism, violence, and death are the fruits of our labor. And a new way forward, one that involves thinking outside the box, is long overdue. Here is what we propose to be the ONLY lasting and feasible solution:

1) Legalize cannabis for all adults over 18, period. Tax and regulate it like we currently do with tobacco and alcohol, with licenses required to sell it. Like tobacco, allow adults to grow their own cannabis for personal use as well.

2) Withdraw from all international treaties that prohibit cannabis.

3) Increase drug treatment and education, funded by the excise taxes.

4) Get tougher on violent crime, gun-running, and racketeering. This will be easier since more resources would be freed up.

5) Create a system of tight regulation for the eventual legalization and controlled distribution of many other currently illegal drugs, except perhaps for the most dangerous ones like methamphetamine, crack, or PCP.

Admittedly, the last one on the list would be the toughest on to do politically, and will be unlikely to happen in the near future regardless of who is in power. But even if the other steps were taken, especially legalizing cannabis, the cartels would be severely hurt economically since the "backbone" of their trade would collapse. It is estimated that as much as 60-70% of their profits come from the cannabis trade with the US. And it is well known that any business who suddenly loses 60% of their profits goes under. Since the cartels are strictly wholesalers (and, of course, producers) of drugs, only full legalization of the entire supply chain would work to upend their trade. In their weakened state resulting from cannabis legalization, the Mexican government would likely finish them off.

As for hard drugs, which represent much of the remainder of the cartels' profits but are highly unlikely to be legalized in either country, demand is best reduced through education and treatment, the latter estimated to be a whopping seven times more cost-effective than interdiction.

For cannabis at least, prohibition clearly fails to even make economic sense. The social costs per user of cannabis use pale in comparison to those associated with alcohol and tobacco, as well as the cost per user of enforcing the laws against cannabis. The potential tax revenue gained plus the huge reduction in enforcement costs would more than offset any hypothesized negative effects of legalization.

Several economists concur with this viewpoint. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor of economics who for 15 years has studied the prohibition of both alcohol and drugs throughout history, makes some very good arguments in favor of legalization. One of his studies found that legalization and taxation of cannabis nationwide would potentially yield $10-14 billion per year in increased revenue and reduced enforcement expenditure. And this is a rather conservative estimate!

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

In addition, a common misconception about the violence in Mexico is that it is caused by looser American gun laws relative to Mexican laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the weapons used (full automatics, rockets, grenade launchers, etc.) are currently illegal in the US. I repeat, they are currently illegal on BOTH sides of the border. And if the corrupt Mexican government really wanted to protect their citizens, they would help them protect themselves by legalizing civilian gun ownership (and concealed carry). Like all thugs and tyrants, the cartels just LOVE unarmed citizens. The "experts" (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) all agree: Gun control works!

UPDATE

Looks like California has put an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis on the ballot for 2010. The initiative, though somewhat flawed, has a decent chance of passing. A whopping 56% of Californians support legalization, as do 53% of Americans overall, the highest in US history. And the state needs something to help plug their monstrous budget deficit--they are technically bankrupt. Will "California Dreaming" finally become a reality? We predict it will pass in 2010 since they finally have a critical mass of supporters. If any state can do it, California can.

The TSAP endorses the initiative as a starting point, but notes that it is far from perfect. For example, the age limit is 21 rather than 18, and several provisions appear to conflict with the Compassionate Use Act's protections of medical cannabis patients. But those "wrinkles" can be ironed out later. The sooner we legalize, the better. And we hope other states will join California as well (already Oregon is considering it).

The Un-American Solution

2009-11-17T17:18:00.000-08:00

The House recently passed their version of healthcare deform, with all the bad stuff (e.g. individual mandates) and a very limited public option. Plus the ~~Stupak~~ Stupid Amendment about abortion. It's all a giveaway to the greedy insurance companies, like the bailouts were for Wall Street, at taxpayer expense. But it will finally "fix" healthcare, right? Wrong--that's like throwing all of us into a pool full of sharks, and maybe one or two small dolphins, and expecting no one to be eaten. In a nutshell, it would "force everyone, with some small exceptions, to buy an overpriced, defective product, year after year, or face a stiff financial penalty," according to one highly astute critic. Since when did a right (to healthcare) become mandatory anyway?

Aside from the ethical implications, there are also constitutional ones to consider as well. Some supporters of the plan say the General Welfare Clause somehow gives the feds the power to force people to buy private insurance. But there is absolutely no precedent for that in this country, and for good reason. Car insurance is a poor comparison since it is only forced by the states, not the feds, and driving on public roads (as opposed to merely existing) is a privilege rather than a right. And while the clause gives the feds (and by extension the states) the power to tax and spend, forcing people to buy something from a private entity is clearly not the same thing. And the current attempt to make an end run by disguising it as a (punitive) tax fails since such a tax on personhood is a direct tax that is unconstitutional when done by the feds unless apportioned among the several states according to population (which it clearly is not). But I guess the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is now "void where prohibited," and we might as well just replace it with the phrase "anything goes." How did America sink so low?

But this will most likely not pass the Senate, thank God. There is no way this can survive a filibuster, especially a bipartisan one. Republican Senator Tim ("Dr. No") Coburn said he will do so by reading the entire mammoth bill out loud on the floor. Read the bill? That's a first for Congress! Hey, how about we do that for EVERY bill that comes to the floor from now on? Takes too long? Well maybe we should put a limit on how many pages a bill can have.

And maybe more people will read between the lines. The healthcare deform bill is really just a capitulation to the insurance industry, plain and simple. Let it die a quick death in the Senate, and may it never be resurrected in a similar form. The American people agree: only 32% say Obama's (really Congress's) plan is a good idea, a new low, while nearly half (47%) say it is a bad idea.

Also being debated is that the Senate bill also may expand Medicare to everyone over 55 instead of having even a weak public option for all ages. At the expense of younger people, of course, who will be taxed to pay for it AND be forced to buy private insurance! If so, that is intergenerational robbery on an unprecedented scale. But hey, as long as the ruling Boomers benefit, to hell with their kids and grandkids, right? Wrong.

The TSAP believes in a single-payer healthcare system for all Americans, funded by progressive taxation, not regressive premiums and penalties. Few Americans know that there is currently an excellent bill in Congress that would do exactly that, but is currently stalled. Healthcare is a human rights issue above all else. Anything less would be uncivilized.

Just When Will We Leave Iraq?

2009-10-29T16:27:00.000-07:00

Who really knows at this point? A recent article suggests that we may stay longer than we planned. Several military commanders want to maintain the current troop levels (117,000--down from 140,000 a year ago) for up to 2 months after the Iraqi elections, scheduled for January 16. But due to political tensions over voter registrations in the Kirkuk province, the elections may be delayed.

Despite recent suicide bombings, however, our troops have not been called back to the cities to quell violence, and the Iraqi government has not even hinted any misgivings about America's withdrawal plan. And violence levels are still lower than they were in 2005 and much lower than in the first half of 2007. It looks like they can stand on their own two feet now, no thanks to Bush's blunders. Even if they couldn't after all these years, that would be their problem, not ours.

Regardless of what happens in Iraq, we still need to get the hell out of there ASAP. On the whole, the American occupation has done more harm than good for the Iraqi people since we invaded in 2003. However, we've miraculously managed to rectify at least some of the tragic mistakes we made over there. Let's not make any further mistakes by staying any longer than planned.

All this while we are debating how many troops to send to Afghanistan. Hey, how about we wind that war down and get out of there as well.

Being the world's police has gotten us nothing but endless world strife and a $12 trillion national debt. Enough already!

We at the TSAP propose that our government ends these twin boondoggles completely, in no more than a year's time. The sooner, the better. Then maybe we could acutally rebuild America for the 21st century rather than let it wither on the vine.

Why Healthcare Reform Is Dead in the Water

2009-10-02T08:28:00.000-07:00

Healthcare reform is still being debated in Congress as we speak. But it is looking grimmer and grimmer by the day.

In 2008, Obama promised to reform healthcare by creating a public option similar to the one Congress currently uses, cutting costs, covering everone who wishes to be covered, and NOT making it mandatory. That in itself was a compromise from what he had said he wanted in 2003, which was a universal, single-payer system like Canada has had for decades. And such compromising from the start was where he went wrong. Obama had to compromise further to placate Congress, and so he did. And compromise with the insurance companies, who, let's face it, really care only about their bottom lines. Who have Congress in their very deep pockets.

And let's not forget about the teabaggers, with their scares about their mythical "death panels" and other made-up fears. These fools really need to get a life!

What will get passed by Congress, if anything, is a severely compromised bill that would likely do more harm than good. Coverage would be mandatory (backed by stiff fines), premiums will go up for nearly everyone, and no public option. That is like forcibly throwing millions of people into a shark-infested pool and expecting no one to be eaten. Since when did the right to be covered by health insurance become a duty to be ripped off?

On top of this, costs will likely continue to skyrocket rather than go down--just look at what Massachusetts has now. Ditto for car insurance in all 50 states.

The TSAP believes that a single-payer system like Canada's is the way to go, preferably one funded by progressive taxation. With price-controlled prescription drugs, and no more HMO's. Anything less would be uncivilized, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all industrialized countries currently have it, with Taiwan being the latest to adopt it. It is also the best way to rein in out-of-control costs. Failing that, we supported Obama's 2008 plan as a steppingstone to real healthcare justice in the future.

But we strongly encourage Congress to vote NO on any compromised plan that lacks a public option and/or penalizes those who can't afford to be ripped off by (or don't wish to give their hard-earned dollars to) greedy private insurers and HMOs.

The Feral Reserve Keeps Printing Money

2009-09-24T13:52:00.000-07:00

Bernanke, chairman of the ~~Federal~~ Feral Reserve, declared the recession to be over (rotflmao) and yet he wants to keep the interest rate at 0% to 0.25%. In other words, continue to print a record amount of money. He wouldn't even raise the rate to 0.50%, which is still really low. If the Fed keeps rates too low for too long, like during the previous recession, we will just get a new bubble. What will it be next time?

Gold already broke $1000 recently, a signal that inflation is on its way. Deflation will no longer be an issue it seems.

There They Go Again!

2009-09-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

The "teabaggers" are at it again. On 9/12/09, the day after the 8th anniversary of 9/11, a massive catch-all protest was held, by the same folks who held the April 15 Re-Tea Party (hence the nickname "teabaggers") and crashed the town-hall meetings. Protesting against healthcare reform, cap-and-trade, the stimulus, bailouts, and, of course, taxes. Despite the fact that taxes were actually cut! Most of the protesters were right-wingers, and they also tend not to be very young. They include the "birthers" (those who deny Obama is a natural-born citizen) and gun nuts who bought up all the guns ammo they could find as soon as Obama won the 2008 election. Need we say more?

Yes, the TSAP also feels that healthcare reform is being pursued the wrong way (we prefer single-payer for all Americans, funded by progressive taxes, with zero HMOs), bailouts were wasteful (no one is "too big to fail"), and the deficit (and the debt) is way too high. We are mortgaging the future so the Millennials and later generations are stuck holding the bag. Obama may not be ideal. The status quo sucks. But we also realize who got us into this mess. I'll give you a hint--it wasn't Obama.

Who started two wars of aggression with little thought of the consequences? Who slept through 9/11 only to use it as an excuse to gut the Constitution and start those wars? Who gave massive tax cuts for the rich in the middle of those expensive wars? Who (among others) raided the Social Security trust fund? Who refused to take any action on climate change and other ecological disasters? Who recklessly ignored our borders? Who allowed his Wall Street and corporate buddies to get away with some of the worst financial scandals in history, crippling the economy, only to bail them out afterward? And who printed and borrowed more money from China (and other countries) to pay for it all? You guessed it--Bush and Cheney. And, of course, the neocons and the super-rich. America got fleeced big time, and the crooks took the money and ran.

Hey teabaggers, when all this was happening, where were you?

The Recession is Over....yeah, right!

2009-08-05T11:34:00.000-07:00

Too many pundits and "experts" are willing to call the end of the recession now, and say we are merely in a "jobless recovery" (a term coined during the last recession), and that is a grave mistake. True, the hemorrhaging has stopped (or slowed to a trickle), as measured by GDP, thanks to an increase in government spending and the stimulus package. The Jow Dones is above 9000 and rising. Inventories have dropped as well, as did the trade deficit. But consumer confidence is still very low, and unemployment is approaching 10% nationwide (it is already in double digits in numerous states). The pain of recession will likely continue until at least the end of 2009, if not longer. And the recovery will likely be slow as well. Bottom line: Americans are still hurting, and still need help.

Most evident is the fact that the BLS publishes another, higher unemployment rate number. The more familiar number is what percentage of the labor force that is not working, but looking for work, as reported by surveys. But "discouraged" workers, namely those who simply gave up on looking because jobs are too hard to find these days, are not included in this figure because they are not considered part of the labor force. But the other unemployment rate number includes discouraged workers, and that rate has been given at 10.2% in July, up from 10.1% in June, while the more familiar rate was 9.4%, and declined from 9.5% in June since the labor force also declined (mainly due to discouraged workers). So the real unemployment rate is already in double digits, and still rising. (Although, when "seasonally adjusted," a slight improvement is noted even for the higher unemployment figure, which may be a glimmer of hope)

The good news is that the housing market has already hit rock bottom, and is starting to recover as we speak (notwithstanding the more recent and ongoing commercial real estate crash). This is necessary for the broader economy to get out of its funk, but unfortunately that alone is not enough since other problems have gotten us into this mess as well. A persistently high unemployment rate will also hinder a recovery since unemployed people have less cash to buy things with.

Yes, I know I have said before that economic growth is overrated, causes more natural resource consumption and pollution, and the benefits go primarily to the richest 1% of the population with minimal trickling down. But as long as the population grows faster than the economy does, unemployment will rise. And in every recession (shrinking economy), the first on the chopping block are the working class and working poor. Most companies would rather permanently axe 10% of their workers, and give lavish bonuses to the CEOs, rather than cut wages temporarily across the board (including the top) until business improves. In a society such as ours that expects all able-bodied adults to work for pay (except, of course, those fortunate enough to be endowed with the means to avoid work), and that has a relatively broken safety net, this is a huge problem.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE:

Much needs to be done to not only get the economy back on track, but provide a long-term fix as well. Many long-term weaknesses are hanging over the heads of the American economy, and need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Here's what the government needs to do, with no apologies to libertarians or paleoconservatives:

Short-Term:

Send out a third (and final) stimulus in the form of a debit card which will expire in a fixed period of time if not used. It MUST be spent, not put in the bank or invested, and can be used to buy anything but bullion. $300 per person sounds about right, but any amount will work. Give it to every adult over 18, regardless of any sort of criteria.
Temporarily extend unemployment benefits for at least six more months, and increase the amount of food stamps.
Call a moratorium on foreclosures of all kinds for at least six months, and delay the resets of ARMs, both until after the new stimulus fully kicks in.
Create more public sector jobs, even if only minimum wage, to get the unemployment rate down. Especially green jobs and infrastructure jobs to rebuild America.
Accelerate the withdrawal from Iraq dramatically, and start pulling out of Afghanistan. These wars are a huge burden on the economy, and we have no business being in either country any longer (if we ever did).

Medium-Term:

Replace the income tax, both individual and corporate, with a value-added tax VAT of 25-30% on nearly everything, with a lag time preceding its phased-in implementation. But have a 25% income tax on every dollar individuals make over $100K, and 50% on every dollar over $1M, with no loopholes whatsoever.
The VAT will also replace the payroll taxes (FICA) for Social Security and Medicare, and put those on a sounder footing. And instead of taking 7.65% of every paycheck for FICA, take 7% and put it in a personal account for the employee's retirement, invested in stocks and bonds. (This will also give the stock market a huge bounce.)
Fight outsourcing, and keep jobs from moving overseas. Put a heavy protective tariff on goods from all countries that pay their workers next to nothing, and/or pollute the environment worse than us. (That's just about every country except Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, and Japan).
Reduce immigration by 80-90%, to no more than the previous year's emigration rate. This will free up numerous jobs that would otherwise be taken, as well as ameliorate overpopulation. Crack down on those who hire illegals as well.
Invest in alternative energy and other green industries, and rebuild America's infrastructure, especially the passenger rail system.
Invest in education to build human capital in America, and make college tuition in public colleges affordable for even the poorest Americans. This will also discourage outsourcing.
For those companies who were given bailouts, much will be asked of them.

Long-Term (Never Again!):

Go back on the gold standard, and abolish the Feral Reserve within a year.
Regulate speculation better, especially in oil.
Bring back the "uptick rule" for short-selling.
Ban credit-default swaps, CDOs, SIVs, and other exotic, Ponzi-esque derivatives.
Abolish (or phase out) subprime mortgages altogether, and put a cap Alt-A mortgages (liar's loans). Require more transparency for ARMs.
Crack down heavily on white-collar crimes, and toughen the penalties.
Abolish "limited-liability" corporations and partnerships (LLC and LLP). Go back to full liability for a change.
Add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, and begin paying down the national debt. Do so with a wealth tax on the net worth of those with more than $10 million in net assets.
Cut government waste.
No more bailouts, ever! No one is too big to fail. That should be a promise, not an idle threat.

If even half of these things were done within short order, we would all be much better off in the long run. Except, of course, the greedy, parasitic elites who profit from the world's misery, of course. I can just hear them howl about it now.

A few more things that could be done include:

Raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50/hour, or what it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation. And index it to inflation permanently so it never has to be raised again. The current rate does not provide a living wage in most of the country. And some states and cities would need to be even higher than $9.50 as well.
Create a job guarantee program, in which everyone who is currently working less than 40 hours a week, or not at all, will be guaranteed an offer of a public sector job at minimum wage to make up the difference, if so chosen. That would be better than a handout, and (involuntary) unemployment could theoretically be reduced to zero. And there is plenty of work that needs to be done!
Have a basic income guarantee (citizen's dividend) for everyone, with no means test, replacing welfare, food stamps, and related programs. Alaska already has one, albeit very meager.

These three things alone would greatly reduce the poverty rate as well as improve the economy. The upsides of one will counteract the downsides of the other two as well.

You Might Be a Republican or Democrat if.....

2009-06-20T09:18:00.001-07:00

I, Ajax the Great, have mentioned before that I have quite a sense of humor. I figured I should put a joke post on the blog as well, satirizing the two major political parties in this country:

You Might be a Republican if......

You think global warming is a hoax, but the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were real.
You think tax cuts for the rich will solve all our economic problems.
The word "privatize" is really just a euphemism for "abolish."
You think that welfare for the poor is bad, but have no problem with corporate welfare and bailouts.
You actually think Fox News is "fair and balanced."
You consider yourself "pro-life," but not when it comes to war, poverty, or the death penalty.
You believe that the right to life begins at conception, but ends at birth.
You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend."
You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."
You think the Teletubbies are gay, and you don't let your kids watch them as a result.
You think a fully automatic Uzi or AK-47 is necessary to hunt deer.
You support a waiting period for abortions but not for gun purchases.
You look down through the glass ceiling and laugh.
You tend to use the word "bootstraps" a lot when talking about the poor, even when those you are talking about don't have shoes.
Gays in the military = bad. Gang members in the military = okay.
You consider education a luxury.
You think fluoridation of drinking water is a communist conspiracy.
You have a problem with "tax-and-spend liberals," but see nothing wrong with borrowing and spending money we don't have.
You believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is good business.
You believe the Feds have a right to know what books one gets out of the library, but background checks for guns are unconstitutional.
You believe teenagers are full adults when it comes to being tried as adults, being executed, or going to war, but not for anything else.
You fear sex more than violence, both on TV and in real life.
You believe abstinence is the only acceptable response to sex, but not for guns, alcohol, or tobacco.
You believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.
You believe "safe sex" is a contradiction, but talk about "clean coal," and "surgical strikes" without even a hint of irony.
You favor warfare over welfare.
You think the minimum wage is too high, but support repealing taxes on inherited wealth.
You believe that pollution is okay, so long as it makes a profit.
You hate affirmative action, but see nothing wrong with "legacy" scholarships.
You believe Bush won both the 2000 and 2004 elections fair and square. But God forbid anyone investigates.
You bash Clinton for "nation-buliding" in Bosnia and Kosovo, but praise Dubya for doing the essentially the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You believe Obama is secretly a Muslim.
You still doubt that Obama is a natural-born citizen, and believe the birth certificate is fake.
You believe in women's rights, just as long as they "stay in their place."
You believe π = 3, exactly, and that the Earth is 6000 years old, and are willing to teach it in school.
You believe Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a society that supposedly tolerates homosexuality. Ditto for 9/11.
The only "gay" you support - is the Enola Gay.
You've ever claimed that you can speak for God.
You've ever claimed that God told you to preemptively invade a foreign nation.
You thought the war in Iraq would be a cakewalk.
You consider Kuwait to be a democracy.
You believe in the original intent and strict construction theories of jurisprudence, but only when it's convenient.
You would rather vote for Barney Fife than Barney Frank.
You support state rights, which means Ashcroft or Gonzales telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he will allow them to have.
You rail against "activist judges," unless they support your right-wing agenda.
You say America is a meritocracy, but God forbid they tax inherited wealth.
You're a "good Christian" but you hate more people than you love.
You consider regulation to be a dirty word when it comes to the economy, but not when it comes to individuals' personal lives.
You believe separation of church and state is a myth, Thomas Jefferson be damned.
You see nothing the least bit Orwellian about the Patriot Act or the Department of Homeland Security, even in their names.
You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.
You've ever referred to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper."
You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You Might be a Democrat if......

You believe our goverment should do something just because everyone in Europe and/or Canada does.
You've never been mugged.
You think serial killers like Ted Bundy can be rehabilitated.
You believe everything you read in the New York Times and Washington Post.
You trust Ted Kennedy when he said that she was driving.
You don't understand why anyone was bothered by Jane Fonda's trip to Hanoi.
The closest you've ever actually been to a rainforest is a Sting concert.
You think high taxes are great, just as long as someone else pays them.
You get an evil grin on your face when listening to "Taxman" by the Beatles.
You think the world owes you a living.
You believe that everyone is responsible for you but you.
You keep count of how many people you know in each racial or ethnic category.
Unwanted fetuses? Hell no. Spotted owls? Hell yeah!
You actually expect to collect Social Security some day.
You believe trial lawyers when they say they are just trying to defend the little guy.
You believe teenagers are full adults when it comes to sex or abortion, but not when it comes to guns, alcohol, or tobacco.
You think public housing is great, but just NIMBY.
You believe guns are the root of all evil, and that crime is society's fault rather than the fault of the criminals.
You think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism.
You believe that teenagers can’t control their sexual urges no matter what we do, but child molesters and rapists can after counseling.
You think only white people can be racist.
You believe the Second Amendment only applies to state-run militias, not individuals.
You believe all the problems in the ghetto are caused by the white man.
You think most Hollywood celebrities are good role models.
You claim to be an environmentalist, but live high off the hog in a mansion that consumes 20 times the national average worth of energy, and frequently fly in a private jet.
You would knowingly vote for a crackhead mayor, repeatedly.
You still believe the Rosenbergs were innocent.
You still believe OJ was innocent.
You believe discrimination is bad, unless it is done in reverse. Then it's called "affirmative action" and is a good thing.
You believe the Jena Six are not violent thugs in need of punishment, but rather modern-day civil rights heroes that should be lionized.
You fear Christian fundamentalists more than you fear Islamic fundamentalists, if you even notice the latter at all.
You've ever made a snarky comment about the Vatican as being the "evil empire."
You've ever thrown bricks through a Starbucks window at a protest/riot, but stopped off for a cup of Seattle's Best on the way back home.
You don't see the irony in the previous statement.
You think McDonalds is a bigger threat to America than Al-Qaeda. Really.
You've ever yelled, "capitalist pig," and you weren't joking.
You hated the first Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the current Iraq War, but saw nothing wrong with the wars in Bosnia or Kosovo, or bombing the aspirin factory in Sudan.
You whine about the evils of "Big Business" but turn a blind eye to the abuses of "Big Labor" (aka unions).
You believe the best way to solve any problem is throwing more money at it (from taxpayers, not your own).
You support a waiting period for guns but not abortions.
You believe merely raising one's voice occasionally is a form of abuse. But only when a man does it, of course.
You believe everyone is equal, just that some are more equal than others.
You support diversity, just as long as others agree with you.
You think Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are heroes, and that Cuba is better than America, but always make up some excuse as to why you don't want to move there despite it being so wonderful.
You believe that, deep down, no one is really "bad," just "misunderstood." Except of course for Republicans, corporations, the rich, and/or anyone else who disagrees with your political agenda. Those are just plain evil, and irredeemably so.
You deny your party's responsibility for Fanny and Freddie's role in the subprime crisis.
Your idea of the free market is handing out free government cheese.
You support school choice for yourself, but not for others.
You would send your kids to public schools, if they had better extracurricular activities.
You don't think the government should legislate morality, unless of course you call it "public health."
You still own anything that says "Dukakis for President."
You think Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore. Ditto for Obama.

You might be either one, or at least NOT a member of the True Spirit of America Party, if.......

You assume the government always knows best.
You can't see the irony in your own beliefs.
You put the "dog" in "dogmatic."
You actually think the Federal Reserve has the nation's best interests at heart, is authorized by the Constitution, and that it is actually part of the federal government.
You think the gold standard is a "barbarous relic" and cannot understand why anyone would possibly want to return to it.
You believe the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" or "a contract that can be renegotiated at any time."
You have ever said, "the Bill of Rights is outdated."
Your idea of hell is having to mind your own business and not meddle in other people's lives.
You believe the right to life begins at conception, but ends at 18 (abortion = bad, draft = good).
You believe we should bring back the draft so the "sacrifice would be shared equally," but God forbid anyone over 30 has to go.
You believe 18-20 year olds are old enough to go to war, vote, get married, have custody of a child, enter binding contracts, work in dangerous jobs, buy guns, buy cigarettes, and be executed, but somehow not old enough to drink.
You actually believe that raising the drinking age to 21 had a net lifesaving effect in the long run.
You think cannabis is "evil" and "highly dangerous" and those that use it should be jailed or worse, but you ignore the pink elephant in the room.
Of course, you never inhaled, right?
You believe the Constitution gives the government nearly absolute power to control what individuals do to their own bodies, even in their own homes.
You believe protecting legal adults from themselves is a legitimate government function.
You believe Millennials (those born 1982-2000) are the worst generation in American history (even when the statistics say that is not true).
You turn a blind eye to the dangerous and even criminal behavior of Baby Boomers, both now and back in the day, while criminalizing teenagers more severely for lesser indiscretions.
You believe in liberty for "just us," not all.
You blame school shootings on guns, Marilyn Manson, heavy metal, rap, video games, and TV. In fact, you blame everything and everyone but the shooters (and the parents).
You believe free speech does not apply to the Internet since the Founders could not have even imagined such a thing.
You believe the victim of a violent or predatory crime is at least somewhat responsible in nearly all cases, and should be treated as such.
You see nothing the least bit wrong with 1% of the population owning over 40% of the nation's wealth.
You think the government can just keep on borrowing money indefinitely with no thought on how to pay it back.
You deny that Social Security and Medicare, as they currently stand now, are unsustainable pyramid schemes in need of a major overhaul.
You think oil, and the lifestyle it enables, will last forever.
You think "ethics" is the name of an Eastern European country.
You believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.
You want America to continue policing the world, or at least assume that doing so is sustainable.
You are terrified of anything "nuclear," to the point that you won't even eat irradiated meat.
You believe overpopulation is a myth. Or worse, you believe that Americans are having too few children!
You favor growth for the sake of growth, whether population or economic.
You have your head in an anatomically impossible position.

Current Account Deficit: $101.5 BILLION
Total Bailouts: $8.5 TRILLLION (and growing)
National Debt: $12.5 TRILLION (and growing)
Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities: $70 TRILLION (and growing)
Saddling future generations with unprecedented debt and ecological crises, as long as the current generation in power benefits from it: PRICELESS
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Congress.

Flag Day

2009-06-14T20:43:00.000-07:00

Just pointing out that today is Flag Day. But this blog looks no different today because we display the Stars and Stripes every day.

To all the ignorant fools who burn it, remember what it is that you're really burning, and all those that fought and died for it. Those who consider themselves to be on the political left would be better served by "taking back the Flag" and waving it proudly, so it is not perverted into an ultra-right-wing symbol by the fascists. Make it clear that the government policies you oppose are not in the national interest. And let everyone know that you can just as strongly love this country as you fear its government. In fact, plenty of true patriots often do feel that way.

The Flag is not Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or belonging to any other faction. It is the American Flag, and it belongs to all of us. Live free or die!

Is America Finally Considering the Gold Standard?

2009-06-07T12:07:00.000-07:00

Rumors abound that the U.S. Treasury is creating a new currency, known as "Gold Dollars." You read that right--it is a currency backed 100% by actual gold! And it will allegedly exist alongside the regular dollar and can be interconverted. Though the veracity of these rumors is unconfirmed, the TSAP believes that this is an idea whose time has come.

First, a brief history lesson. America started out on the silver standard. Then, we went bimetallic (gold and silver) in the 1800's. In 1900, under President McKinley, we ditched silver and went pure gold. Then, in 1913, something called the ~~Federal~~ Feral Reserve was created. The power to control the money supply (originally belonged to Congress under the Constitution) and interest rates (originally belonged to the market) was delegated by an Act of Congress to an unelected, quasi-government entity that meets in secret to figure how to exercise this awesome power over the economy. Our third attempt at creating a central bank, this one unfortunately stuck.

Here's how it works: when the Fed cuts interest rates, the Treasury generally must print more money (increasing the money supply), when they raise rates, less gets printed, and banks get less. If the amount printed is less than the amount of worn-out money that is burned, the money supply decreases. Paper money enters the economy when the Fed lends it at interest to the Treasury, who prints it.

Now the Fed caused to be printed a ton of money from 1913 through the late 1920s. We were on the gold standard, but they printed more paper money than there was gold with which to back it, causing inflation. Up until this point, we had very low inflation, and even a deflationary bias. Gold had anchored the money supply, and was supposed to limit the amount of money printed, but the Fed disregarded this fundamental rule, and thus we had a fractional reserve gold standard instead.

In 1928, the Fed began raising rates after cutting them for a long time, ostensibly to discourage excessive speculation in the stock market. The market was in the midst of a bubble, and in 1929 they decided to pop it. Ouch. Though the recession began three months prior to the crash, this undoubtedly worsened it. Banks began failing. Instead of cutting rates, the Fed still kept raising rates to prop up the overvalued dollar. But the dollar still dropped, and the price of gold on the black market skyrocketed as people made a run on the dollar. In other words, the Fed had turned a mild recession into a full-blown depression, the worst we ever had. They essentially fought fire with gasoline! In 1933, FDR decided to confiscate everyone's gold with the Gold Act, and shortly thereafter he abolished the gold standard, giving the Fed unlimited money printing power. Finally, rates were cut since there was no reason to prop up the dollar anymore, and the economy slowly improved. Though that may sound superficially like an argument against the gold standard, it is really an argument against fractional reserve banking and the Fed. And the story is not over yet.

After World War II, an international quasi-gold standard called the Bretton-Woods system was created in 1946. Though it worked well at first, the Fed couldn't seem to keep its hands off the printing press. We paid for the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War all with overvalued dollars that were supposedly backed by gold. By 1971, this system had failed miserably, stagflation began, and Nixon abolished the gold standard entirely. Inflation soared to levels never seen before, and a deep inflationary recession occurred in 1974-75. Stagflation (a double whammy of high inflation and high unemployment) was a new phenomenon that had previously been impossible due to the gold standard, but now it was everywhere. It got so bad that in 1982, the Fed engineered a second recession by jacking up the interest rates to over 20% to choke off the bloated money supply and thus kill "excess" inflation, and it worked (but was very painful nonetheless). But the inflationary bias of fiat money still remains to this day, excess money is still printed, and thus a dollar now is worth less than what a NICKEL was 100 years ago.

Currently, the U.S. Treasury owns about 238.5 billion dollars worth of actual gold as of April 30, 2009. Even if we assume a value of $1000 per ounce, that is $260 billion, that's about 7% of next year's government budget. And our incomprehensibly large national debt is slightly larger than the approximate value of all the gold in the world. In other words, we got way too many dollars in circulation, and not enough gold (or even silver) to back all of them as it stands now. You can thank the Feral Reserve for that.

Where do we go from here? Here are the alternatives: 1) redefine the current dollar in terms of gold based on the current market price, fractional-reserve, and trust the Fed not to print too much money, 2) do the same as #1, but abolish the Fed and leave control of the money supply to Congress and interest rates to the market, 3) create a new, full-reserve, gold-backed currency in parallel with the current dollar, and abolish the Fed, 4) do #3 but phase out the old fiat dollar entirely, or 5) continue business as usual, and let the dollar depreciate even more.

Alternative #1--been there, done it, caused the Great Depression. Very bad idea.

Alternative #2 would be like a sequel to Bretton-Woods, minus the Fed of course. That would not be a pure gold standard since it would be fractional reserve, but we would keep the same currency (which would be fixed at today's value more or less with minimal depreciation). It would be a definition of the dollar, and a limit to how much can be printed. In other words, stability. A viable idea.

Alternative #3 is similar to the aforementioned rumor (minus the Fed). Several unrecognized private currencies like this already exist (Liberty Dollar comes to mind). But the long-term effects of having two officially-recognized, interconvertible currencies simultaneously is unknown.

Alternative #4 is ideal, a full-reserve gold standard, but we would have to proceed with caution to avoid too much disruption to the economy. In the long run, this would be the best bet.

Alternative #5 is obviously bad in the long run.

The TSAP recommends that we start immediately with alternative #2, and gradually transition to #3 and/or #4 to phase in a full-reserve currency. Though less than ideal, many of the benefits can be achieved using alternative #2, provided that there is no Fed and that gold and dollars are readily interconvertible at any bank in real time. And also that the currency is not debased any further. Most people would rather not carry around physical gold anyway, so the stock of gold is unlikely to be depleted.
The transition would occur as follows if the TSAP was in power:

Pass the Federal Reserve Abolition Act, restoring its power to Congress and transfering its assets to the U.S. Treasury.
Enact a law that defines the dollar as 1/1000th of an ounce of gold, based on a value close to the current market price of gold (near $1000/ounce). Define silver initially at $20/ounce.
Produce more gold and silver American Eagles and Buffalos labeled as $1000 and $20, respectively, with full convertibility between paper money and such coins (obviously a very limited number made). They will be legal tender for all debts. Freeze the number of paper notes in circulation.
Produce a limited number of gold certificates, and only those will have full convertibility with gold bullion (other than the limited number of Eagles and Buffalos) at banks. These will, in effect, be a second currency. An absolutely full-reserve currency.
Gradually phase out the old fractional-reserve dollar.
Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, and run surpluses until the national debt is paid off.

Or we could figure out something else to back money with that has a larger supply than gold or silver, like carbon, energy, time, wood, etc. But the point is that fiat (funny) money (and the Feral Reserve) has to go!