Well, it's official now. The Republican Tax Scam has now been signed into law on December 22, 2017. The TL;DR version: It is basically reverse Robin Hood economics--rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class. In other words, it's Reaganomics on steroids.
The lion's share of the tax cuts will go to the rich and mega-corporations, while the bottom 99% will get little or nothing, or even a tax hike depending on the exact vicissitudes of where one falls in the tax code. Small businesses, or at least many of them, will likely get a swift kick in the margins, while large corporations make out like bandits. And the price tag? Over $1 TRILLION added to the national debt over the next ten years. So much for the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility, right? Which will trigger automatic spending cuts to Medicare among other programs, unless Congress chooses to waive such cuts. And it will also provide the perfect cover for Paul Ryan and his buddies pushing further cuts to the programs that they have had in their sights since forever, most notably Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, among several others as well.
If that wasn't bad enough, the Tax Scam also contains a bit of chaos manufacture in regards to Obamacare. It effectively repeals the individual mandate for Obamacare, without replacing it with anything or doing anything whatsoever to stabilize the markets. Granted, the TSAP has long advocated (until we get single-payer healthcare) replacing the mandate with more positive incentives (such as increased subsidies), more stringent rules for special enrollment, and perhaps a surcharge as well for those try to game the system by dropping coverage and getting back in later. Even the greedy insurance industry would be fine with such a replacement mechanism to prevent adverse selection. But this bill contains no such mechanism, so unless something else is done soon, the result will indeed be chaos.
Oh, and to top it off, the bill also opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for "Drill, baby, drill!" Because we really, really need to rape and plunder one of the very few remaining pristine areas of the Earth, because GROOOOWWWWTH! Or something.
So overall, this is a very bad deal, and is essentially America's going out of business sale. But hey, at least we will all get cheaper booze from this, right?
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Monday, November 6, 2017
Enough Is Enough Already! (Again)
On November 5, yet another horrible mass shooting occurred. A gunman armed with the obligatory AR-15 shot up a church in the small town of Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 and injuring many others. All because--wait for it---his estranged mother-in-law happened to attend that particular church. Yes, really. I mean, how evil can one get? Seems that mass shootings have become an almost daily occurrence in recent years--in the USA at least. But the rest of the industrialized world doesn't really seem to have this kind of problem. Why is that? Well, there's always....
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
In fact, let's put this as bluntly as possible. The monster who did this heinous and cowardly act was in fact a wife-beater, a baby-beater, and an animal abuser. He was even kicked out of the Air Force for his previous misdeeds. Later, he was also accused of and investigated for rape as well. And yet, somehow he still managed to not only get off fairly easy for it all, but he was even able to get his hands on a military-style killing machine. Let that sink in.
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and a history of violence against women and children ultimately led to the deaths of 26 innocent people and the injuries of many others as well. And yet supposedly no one saw it coming, at least under the current broken system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
- Bring back a new and improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth. This time, include all rapid-fire devices and all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well as the previously-banned types of semi-automatic rifles and their knockoffs.
- Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday.
- End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks, yesterday.
- Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (Seriously)
- Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales. Or better yet, treat bullets like Sudafed: must show ID, limit on the number that one can buy, the number bought would be recorded, and if you do buy too many, you will be investigated.
- Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level. And consider perhaps putting a limit on the number of guns that an individual can own at a given time, except for antiques/relics/curios.
- Require reporting of lost or stolen guns.
- Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent.
- Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS. Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period. (Believe it or not, this shooter should have been prohibited due to domestic violence, but due to an error in the system he was able to get an AR-15 assault rifle anyway.)
- Consider a massive gun buyback program, one that pays significantly more than what the guns are worth on the street. Voluntary for any still-legal weapons, mandatory for any newly-banned ones.
- And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system.
In fact, let's put this as bluntly as possible. The monster who did this heinous and cowardly act was in fact a wife-beater, a baby-beater, and an animal abuser. He was even kicked out of the Air Force for his previous misdeeds. Later, he was also accused of and investigated for rape as well. And yet, somehow he still managed to not only get off fairly easy for it all, but he was even able to get his hands on a military-style killing machine. Let that sink in.
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and a history of violence against women and children ultimately led to the deaths of 26 innocent people and the injuries of many others as well. And yet supposedly no one saw it coming, at least under the current broken system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
The Donald Is Going Down
First, the TSAP would like to give our deepest condolences to the victims of the horrible terrorist attack in downtown Manhattan (NYC) on October 31. Regardless of what was going through his head when he did it, the monster who did such a cowardly and despicable act needs to be brought to justice.
As for Trump, he basically did what he does best--exploit a tragedy for his own gain and/or to push his toxic and racist agenda. Yes, this attack was an act of radical Islamic terrorism (by a "lone wolf" inspired by what's left of ISIL aka the Daesh-bags), and the first known one on US soil since the Donald was inaugurated in January. But this was NOT the first terrorist attack that occurred on his watch. There were indeed several other attacks, some of them extremely deadly (Las Vegas shooting, hello!), committed largely (and predictably) by white American males. And many of these attacks were done by white supremacists to one degree or another. But Trump was predictably silent about these attacks for the most part, and sometimes even seemed to be praising (or at least tacitly condoning) the Alt-Reich terrorists. And he practically goes out of his way to NOT use the word "terrorism" to describe such heinous acts, as long as they are committed by white, non-Muslim Americans. Seriously.
Fortunately for us all, if there is any sort of silver lining to be found in such a horrible tragedy, the Manhattan terrorist attack occurred after the ignominious indictments of his buddies Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, as well as George Papadopoulos' infamous guilty plea. That is, what would have likely been a major rallying point for Trump's base, and even many fence-sitters, essentially came two days too late for him. And at this point, there is really no salvaging his presidency, no matter how hard he tries in vain to "wag the dog" or sweep the ever-growing Russiagate scandal under the rug.
He has already had his Benghazi (twice), his Katrina (three times), and now his 9/11 (in the same city no less, albeit on a much smaller scale). And what will ultimately go down in history as his own personal Watergate on steroids will make even the original Tricky Dick himself look like a saint by comparison. And his first year isn't even done yet.
The jig is up, Donald. Please do us all a YUUUUGE favor and RESIGN. Yesterday.
As for Trump, he basically did what he does best--exploit a tragedy for his own gain and/or to push his toxic and racist agenda. Yes, this attack was an act of radical Islamic terrorism (by a "lone wolf" inspired by what's left of ISIL aka the Daesh-bags), and the first known one on US soil since the Donald was inaugurated in January. But this was NOT the first terrorist attack that occurred on his watch. There were indeed several other attacks, some of them extremely deadly (Las Vegas shooting, hello!), committed largely (and predictably) by white American males. And many of these attacks were done by white supremacists to one degree or another. But Trump was predictably silent about these attacks for the most part, and sometimes even seemed to be praising (or at least tacitly condoning) the Alt-Reich terrorists. And he practically goes out of his way to NOT use the word "terrorism" to describe such heinous acts, as long as they are committed by white, non-Muslim Americans. Seriously.
Fortunately for us all, if there is any sort of silver lining to be found in such a horrible tragedy, the Manhattan terrorist attack occurred after the ignominious indictments of his buddies Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, as well as George Papadopoulos' infamous guilty plea. That is, what would have likely been a major rallying point for Trump's base, and even many fence-sitters, essentially came two days too late for him. And at this point, there is really no salvaging his presidency, no matter how hard he tries in vain to "wag the dog" or sweep the ever-growing Russiagate scandal under the rug.
He has already had his Benghazi (twice), his Katrina (three times), and now his 9/11 (in the same city no less, albeit on a much smaller scale). And what will ultimately go down in history as his own personal Watergate on steroids will make even the original Tricky Dick himself look like a saint by comparison. And his first year isn't even done yet.
The jig is up, Donald. Please do us all a YUUUUGE favor and RESIGN. Yesterday.
Monday, October 30, 2017
The Beginning of the End for Trump
The Donald had a really, really bad day today, and just in time for Halloween too. Two of his associates, the ever-shady former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former aide Rick Gates, have now been indicted on charges of conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, unregistered foreign agent, and making false statements, and another former aide, George Papadopoulos, has pled guilty earlier this month to lying to FBI agents about contacts with Russian agents. Specifically, such contacts involved attempting to set up a meeting between said agents and the Trump campaign, as well as attempting to get "dirt" on Hillary. Thus, in other words, there is really no denying collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin at this point, no matter how much Trump tries to "wag the dog" and sweep it under the rug. And to top it off, Trump's outrageous ban on transgender people in the military was struck down by the courts. All before 3pm today.
And Mueller's investigation of the ever-growing Russiagate scandal is just getting started. No wonder the entire White House recently lawyered up, because it's clear that there really IS a "there", there. Get your popcorn ready, because this is essentially the beginning of the end for Trump and his basket of deplorables in his administration.
So who will be the next domino to fall?
So who will be the next domino to fall?
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Corporate Tax Cuts Won't Boost Wages Or Improve America's Economic Well-Being
A scathing new report by the Economic Policy Institute confirms what progressives have already known: corporate tax cuts will NOT boost wages or have any practically significant net benefits for the non-rich. This report is rather timely, given that a massive corporate tax cut is a key component of the Trump-led Republican tax reform agenda that is currently under debate in Congress.
In a nutshell, the top corporate tax rate had hovered around 50% for decades until 1986 when Reagan cut it to 34%, and to this day it remains at 35%. And while there were always loopholes for both individuals and corporations, the number of loopholes for corporations also increased dramatically since Reagan's 1986 tax code overhaul, to the point where many large corporations pay zero or even negative taxes! And all the while, workers' wages have lagged behind both corporate profits (since around 1990) and labor productivity gains (since 1973 and especially since 1980), often not even keeping up with inflation for those at the bottom of the scale. And trade deficits, foreign tax havens, and foreign cash holdings in such havens have only increased, along with outsourcing and offshoring.
Thus, the idea that further tax cuts for large corporations would benefit American workers is nothing but the latest incarnation of trickle-down voodoo economics, plain and simple. By all means, close all the loopholes. Give tax breaks and cuts to truly small businesses. But cutting the marginal rate on large corporations would do nothing but make the already rich even richer, while blowing a massive hole in the federal budget as well.
In the past, the TSAP recommended cutting corporate taxes while simultaneously closing loopholes. Currently, though, we no longer recommend any tax cuts for corporations whose annual profits are in the seven figures or higher. In fact, we now recommend making the corporate tax code that much more steeply progressive, with the top bracket restored to 50%, with NO LOOPHOLES this time, and the very smallest businesses paying no tax at all. We also support the corporate tax applying only to retained earnings (i.e. profits less any dividend payouts) while taxing dividends and capital gains for individuals at the same rate as ordinary income. And as we have noted before, the top marginal tax rate for individuals should be at least 50% beyond the first million dollars per year and perhaps 70% beyond the first ten million, again with NO LOOPHOLES this time. Any overhaul of the tax code that we would support should really include all of these features.
In a nutshell, the top corporate tax rate had hovered around 50% for decades until 1986 when Reagan cut it to 34%, and to this day it remains at 35%. And while there were always loopholes for both individuals and corporations, the number of loopholes for corporations also increased dramatically since Reagan's 1986 tax code overhaul, to the point where many large corporations pay zero or even negative taxes! And all the while, workers' wages have lagged behind both corporate profits (since around 1990) and labor productivity gains (since 1973 and especially since 1980), often not even keeping up with inflation for those at the bottom of the scale. And trade deficits, foreign tax havens, and foreign cash holdings in such havens have only increased, along with outsourcing and offshoring.
Thus, the idea that further tax cuts for large corporations would benefit American workers is nothing but the latest incarnation of trickle-down voodoo economics, plain and simple. By all means, close all the loopholes. Give tax breaks and cuts to truly small businesses. But cutting the marginal rate on large corporations would do nothing but make the already rich even richer, while blowing a massive hole in the federal budget as well.
In the past, the TSAP recommended cutting corporate taxes while simultaneously closing loopholes. Currently, though, we no longer recommend any tax cuts for corporations whose annual profits are in the seven figures or higher. In fact, we now recommend making the corporate tax code that much more steeply progressive, with the top bracket restored to 50%, with NO LOOPHOLES this time, and the very smallest businesses paying no tax at all. We also support the corporate tax applying only to retained earnings (i.e. profits less any dividend payouts) while taxing dividends and capital gains for individuals at the same rate as ordinary income. And as we have noted before, the top marginal tax rate for individuals should be at least 50% beyond the first million dollars per year and perhaps 70% beyond the first ten million, again with NO LOOPHOLES this time. Any overhaul of the tax code that we would support should really include all of these features.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
More Guns, Less Crime? Well, Not Exactly....
In the wake of so many recent mass shootings, the TSAP has gradually shifted our position on guns towards favoring more gun control than in the past. But what about the old standby argument that "more guns = less crime", as John Lott's famous 1997 study argued and the gun lobby just luurrrves to parrot to this day?
Well, it turns out that more recent research has thoroughly debunked that zombie idea that just doesn't seem to want to die already. To wit, the best studies on the matter show either no significant effect either way or even an increase in violent crime correlated with right-to-carry laws. And tighter gun laws in general--surprise, surprise--are in fact also correlated with fewer gun deaths in general as well. As for the old chestnut about self-defense, it turns out that having a gun in the house actually makes its occupants statistically LESS safe on balance. While it is true that correlation does not prove causation, such correlations still robustly hold up after numerous variables are controlled for and in a variety of statistical models, and clearly lean in the opposite direction as Lott's discredited, outdated, and now-a-radical-outlier study does. These facts dovetail nicely with well-known international evidence as well.
Ok, you ask, but then why did violent crime, including firearm homicides, drop in states that passed right-to-carry laws? Well, it dropped in all states for a variety of unrelated reasons, but it did not drop evenly: states that did not loosen their gun laws in fact saw much larger decreases in violent crime compared with the states that did loosen theirs. And gun ownership rates actually dropped during the period of decreasing gun violence, which means a positive correlation between gun ownership and violence. Thus, we see that Lott's whole thesis was based on nothing more than a statistical mirage all along.
So, in other words, the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly suggests that "more guns = more crime" is true, all else being equal. We at the TSAP do apologize for also mindlessly parroting the now-debunked opposite theory for so long. While we were never in league with the NRA or took even one penny from the gun lobby, we were nonetheless unwittingly acting as fellow-travelers for them on purely libertarian and individualistic grounds. And we now realize what a grave error that has been, all because of--dare we say--JUNK SCIENCE. I mean, what else would you call a specious "study" that looks good at first, yet is later revealed to be not only inaccurate, but in fact virtually 100% wrong?
While we still support the Second Amendment, of course, it would seem that now our favorite part is where it says "well-regulated". Yes, really. Too bad the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for politicians can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence! But the gun lobby and their lackeys aren't really well known for nuance, to put it mildly.
Well, it turns out that more recent research has thoroughly debunked that zombie idea that just doesn't seem to want to die already. To wit, the best studies on the matter show either no significant effect either way or even an increase in violent crime correlated with right-to-carry laws. And tighter gun laws in general--surprise, surprise--are in fact also correlated with fewer gun deaths in general as well. As for the old chestnut about self-defense, it turns out that having a gun in the house actually makes its occupants statistically LESS safe on balance. While it is true that correlation does not prove causation, such correlations still robustly hold up after numerous variables are controlled for and in a variety of statistical models, and clearly lean in the opposite direction as Lott's discredited, outdated, and now-a-radical-outlier study does. These facts dovetail nicely with well-known international evidence as well.
Ok, you ask, but then why did violent crime, including firearm homicides, drop in states that passed right-to-carry laws? Well, it dropped in all states for a variety of unrelated reasons, but it did not drop evenly: states that did not loosen their gun laws in fact saw much larger decreases in violent crime compared with the states that did loosen theirs. And gun ownership rates actually dropped during the period of decreasing gun violence, which means a positive correlation between gun ownership and violence. Thus, we see that Lott's whole thesis was based on nothing more than a statistical mirage all along.
So, in other words, the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly suggests that "more guns = more crime" is true, all else being equal. We at the TSAP do apologize for also mindlessly parroting the now-debunked opposite theory for so long. While we were never in league with the NRA or took even one penny from the gun lobby, we were nonetheless unwittingly acting as fellow-travelers for them on purely libertarian and individualistic grounds. And we now realize what a grave error that has been, all because of--dare we say--JUNK SCIENCE. I mean, what else would you call a specious "study" that looks good at first, yet is later revealed to be not only inaccurate, but in fact virtually 100% wrong?
While we still support the Second Amendment, of course, it would seem that now our favorite part is where it says "well-regulated". Yes, really. Too bad the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for politicians can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence! But the gun lobby and their lackeys aren't really well known for nuance, to put it mildly.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Enough Is Enough Already!
The worst mass shooting in modern American history* occurred just a few days ago on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas. A lone gunman (of unknown motive and political affiliation) armed to the teeth with the obligatory high-powered semi-automatic rifle--23 of them to be exact, many equipped with rapid-fire "bump stocks", plus thousands of rounds of ammo--shot up a country music concert from the window in his hotel room, killing 59 and injuring over 500 people. It seems that mass shootings have become an almost daily occurrence in recent years--in the USA at least. But the rest of the industrialized world doesn't really seem to have this kind of problem. Why is that? Well, there's always....
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and perhaps some unknown sort of zealotry (or not) ultimately led to the deaths of over 50 innocent people. And yet no one saw it coming, at least under the current system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
* Many people refer to the Las Vegas shooting as the "worst mass shooting in American history" period, but to do so ignores that there were even worse ones still in the 19th century against Native Americans, most notably at Wounded Knee. Of course, that's different. I mean, today's shootings aren't even in the same league as the GENOCIDE our nation was founded on.
GUNS.
America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed. Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN. Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence. Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge". With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?
There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done. However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well. Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:
- Bring back a new and improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth. This time, include all rapid-fire devices and all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well as the previously-banned types of semi-automatic rifles and their knockoffs.
- Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday.
- End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks, yesterday.
- Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (Seriously)
- Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales. Or better yet, treat bullets like Sudafed: must show ID, limit on the number that one can buy, the number bought would be recorded, and if you do buy too many, you will be investigated.
- Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level. And consider perhaps putting a limit on the number of guns that an individual can own at a given time, except for antiques/relics/curios.
- Require reporting of lost or stolen guns.
- Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent.
- Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS. Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period. (Believe it or not, the shooter in last year's Orlando shooting was on the terror watch list and was still able to get a gun)
- Consider a massive gun buyback program, one that pays significantly more than what the guns are worth on the street. Voluntary for any still-legal weapons, mandatory for any newly-banned ones.
- And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system.
In this particular shooting, a deadly combination of toxic masculinity, readily-available weapons of war, and perhaps some unknown sort of zealotry (or not) ultimately led to the deaths of over 50 innocent people. And yet no one saw it coming, at least under the current system. If that's not the all-time KING of wake-up calls, I honestly don't know what is.
I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence. Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines. Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.
* Many people refer to the Las Vegas shooting as the "worst mass shooting in American history" period, but to do so ignores that there were even worse ones still in the 19th century against Native Americans, most notably at Wounded Knee. Of course, that's different. I mean, today's shootings aren't even in the same league as the GENOCIDE our nation was founded on.
Monday, September 4, 2017
State of the Planet Address 2017 (Post-Harvey Edition)
Every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our annual State of the Planet Address in mid-January. This year, we gave one in February and a second one in September due to the record-breaking Hurricane Harvey. 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, and has been for quite some time now. 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 thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and the third straight record year. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past dozen years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record) for a taste of the future.
In fact, on the other side of the world, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end 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 towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
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. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience 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 (or points) 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, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, 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. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
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. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this 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.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
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. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
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 absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. We have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. 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 thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year. In fact, 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and the third straight record year. Look no further than the three record-breaking storms in the past dozen years: Katrina (2005, highest storm surge), Sandy (2012, largest diameter), and now Harvey (2017, a 1000-year flood, and overall worst hurricane on record) for a taste of the future.
In fact, on the other side of the world, the worst monsoon season in recent memory has recently displaced 41 million people due to record flooding. Thus for many, the future is sadly already here to one degree or another.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end 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 towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
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. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience 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 (or points) 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, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, 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. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
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. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this 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.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
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. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. So let's not get rid of it prematurely.
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 absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, with no indication of rising back above replacement rate in the near term. But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril. And while the current administration in DC clearly doesn't care, We the People must act nonetheless. With no apologies to the deniosaurs or Big Oil or Big Gas, or Dirty Coal.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda supersedes it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
So quibble all you want, but the truth must be faced head-on. We have a planet to save. So let's roll!
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
We Must Condemn the Alt-Reich (Or, What Hath Trump Wrought?)
First, let's be brutally honest about what the so-called "alt-right" really is: they are a repackaged and rebranded collection of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and KKK, with some neo-reactionaries, neo-Confederates, and fellow-travelers thrown in for good measure. Even the term "white nationalist" is a euphemism for what these racist, hate-mongering deplorables really are. Let's get that straight first.
Further emboldened, some neo-Nazis even vandalized the Boston Holocaust Memorial shortly after, the second time this summer after 22 straight years of no such incidents. The broken glass was clearly an echo of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, and there were swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti everywhere. So much for a "post-racial society". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that hate crimes have accelerated since the Trump campaign and especially since the election.
Second, let's be brutally honest about what really happened in Charlottesville, VA on August 12-13, 2017. A group of the aforementioned Alt-Reich white supremacist hatemongers descended on the town of Charlottesville to protest the taking down of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. And that protest quickly got out of hand. What started as marching through town with citronella Tiki torches (end-of-summer sale at Walmart, what else) ended in violence and bloodshed when the increasingly angry and restless (and armed) crowd of modern-day brownshirts clashed with the counter-protestors who opposed them. One of the white supremacists, James Alex Fields, Jr., even used his accelerating car as a weapon and drove through a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. And yes, that is premeditated murder--it was planned and he exhibited what is known as "universal malice" when he deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon against his targets. In fact, it is clearly an act of domestic terrorism. And the black man that was brutally beaten with poles by a group of white supremacists in a parking garage? He was the victim of a modern-day lynching.
Then Un-President Trump, ever careful not to offend his deplorable base that voted for him, blamed the violence on "both sides", drawing the ultimate false equivalency--a dog whistle that was not lost on the neo-Nazis. Then, two days after it happened and after much criticism, he then finally named the problem--racism, white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis--but then almost in the same breath implied that we should all "unite" (!) with them. Then, in his next speech, he even had the GALL to blame the violence on the "alt-left", whatever that is. Sounds like more "alt-facts" as usual, Donald. Sadly, this comes as no surprise.
Further emboldened, some neo-Nazis even vandalized the Boston Holocaust Memorial shortly after, the second time this summer after 22 straight years of no such incidents. The broken glass was clearly an echo of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, and there were swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti everywhere. So much for a "post-racial society". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that hate crimes have accelerated since the Trump campaign and especially since the election.
It should be painfully obvious now that Trump in fact created, or at least unleashed, this monster, or at least its latest incarnation which he keeps enabling. And he utterly failed his biggest moral test yet by not immediately and unequivocally naming and condemning this monster. Worse, he even once referred to them collectively as "fine people".
To all those who voted for Trump, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? Because we wouldn't know anything about that. Believe me.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Trump Is "Wagging the Dog"--But Will He Get Us All Killed?
As the Russiagate scandal is closing in on the Trump administration and it is becoming increasingly clear that the jig is up, Trump is getting increasingly bold in his attempts to "wag the dog", that is, to distract the American people from the ever-growing scandal. His latest attempt to do so is to apparently provoke a war--even a potential nuclear war(!)--with North Korea. And the (other) already-unhinged dictator, Kim Jong Un, is making threats against the USA in response to Trump's reckless "fire and fury" and "locked and loaded" threats against North Korea. Clearly, he is playing a very dangerous game to say the least.
In other words, Trump is perfectly willing to literally risk getting us all KILLED for no other reasons than 1) so he can temporarily distract us from the Russiagate scandal, 2) to possibly extract favorable deals from China, and 3) to get to play "war" and "tough guy" (with other people's lives) at the same time. This comedy of errors is clearly NOT funny anymore, if it ever really was. I hate to say it, but suddenly the idea of a President Pence (shudder!) doesn't really look quite so scary anymore by comparison.
Bottom line: The Donald absolutely MUST be impeached or forced to resign, yesterday. Otherwise, there may not even be a tomorrow.
Monday, July 17, 2017
About That Danish Minimum Wage Study
On the heels of the debate about the specious Seattle minimum wage study, a new Danish study is currently making headlines. Denmark has a de facto minimum wage (set by collective bargaining) of over $20/hour, or about $14.50/hour when adjusting for purchasing power parity. That is the rate for adults 18 and over. Prior to that age, the de facto minimum wage is significantly lower, and suddenly jumps by 40% upon turning 18. The researchers did a regression discontinuity design to determine what effects on employment that would have, and they found a 33% drop in employment within the first month after turning 18. And it apparently takes a full two years for the employment rate to fully recover to what it was just prior to one's 18th birthday.
So what do we make of this finding? This study actually leaves the reader with more questions than answers. One should note that age discrimination in employment is illegal in Denmark, with one exception: it is in fact perfectly legal to fire someone upon turning 18 in order to avoid paying the higher minimum wage. Yes, really. Thus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that creates a powerful incentive to preferentially hire 16 and 17 year olds temporarily, use them up, and throw them away like so much garbage upon turning 18.
However, this study does not actually prove that a higher minimum wage is a bad idea overall. The biggest takeaway from this study is that age discrimination is a bad idea across the board, not that the minimum wage is too high. So close the goddamn loophole in the age discrimination law. And if they still see a need to set the minimum wage lower for workers under 18, at least make it graduated and less of a difference from the adult minimum wage.
For example, the TSAP party platform calls for the minimum wage in this country to be raised to $15/hour for all workers over 18, with the minimum wage for workers under 18 set no less than 80% of the adult minimum wage (i.e. $12/hour), on a sliding scale rather than one sudden and sharp jump. And it should go without saying that firing someone upon turning 18 (or any age, for that matter) just to avoid paying them a bit more should be illegal, period. As this latest study shows, caveat lector, anything less is basically asking for trouble.
So what do we make of this finding? This study actually leaves the reader with more questions than answers. One should note that age discrimination in employment is illegal in Denmark, with one exception: it is in fact perfectly legal to fire someone upon turning 18 in order to avoid paying the higher minimum wage. Yes, really. Thus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that creates a powerful incentive to preferentially hire 16 and 17 year olds temporarily, use them up, and throw them away like so much garbage upon turning 18.
However, this study does not actually prove that a higher minimum wage is a bad idea overall. The biggest takeaway from this study is that age discrimination is a bad idea across the board, not that the minimum wage is too high. So close the goddamn loophole in the age discrimination law. And if they still see a need to set the minimum wage lower for workers under 18, at least make it graduated and less of a difference from the adult minimum wage.
For example, the TSAP party platform calls for the minimum wage in this country to be raised to $15/hour for all workers over 18, with the minimum wage for workers under 18 set no less than 80% of the adult minimum wage (i.e. $12/hour), on a sliding scale rather than one sudden and sharp jump. And it should go without saying that firing someone upon turning 18 (or any age, for that matter) just to avoid paying them a bit more should be illegal, period. As this latest study shows, caveat lector, anything less is basically asking for trouble.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Latest Minimum Wage Study Reeks of Junk Science
A new study claims that Seattle's minimum wage law cost jobs, despite the fact that their unemployment rate dropped dramatically since the new law began to be phased in, faster than the rest of the country, and is now one of the lowest in the nation at 2.6%. But there is far less here than meets the eye, and their methodology is highly questionable. For example, they curiously omit data from the entire fast-food sector, ostensibly due to lack of data (riiiiight!), and assume that any decrease in the number of workers earning below a certain wage is a result of fewer jobs rather than those workers simply getting a raise. Yes, really. All this specious study really proves is that if you torture the data enough, they will confess to anything. And of course, Occam's Razor would strongly disagree with these results, which are way out of line with other recent studies.
One should note that the unemployment rate in Seattle has dropped so low that it has now reached Massachusetts Miracle territory, albeit for reasons unrelated to the minimum wage. In the city's white-hot economy, restaurants are having a hard time finding help due to the tightness of the labor market, and are essentaily forced by the laws of supply and demand to pay employees significantly more as a result, regardless of the legal minimum wage. Keynes would have a field day. And this alone could potentially account for the anomalous results in this yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study that should essentially be considered a radical outlier in the field.
With the issue of the minimum wage now in the spotlight again, we must keep in mind that the whole debate is a giant workaround. Thus, I will let the late great Buckminster Fuller answer the question:
"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."
One should note that the unemployment rate in Seattle has dropped so low that it has now reached Massachusetts Miracle territory, albeit for reasons unrelated to the minimum wage. In the city's white-hot economy, restaurants are having a hard time finding help due to the tightness of the labor market, and are essentaily forced by the laws of supply and demand to pay employees significantly more as a result, regardless of the legal minimum wage. Keynes would have a field day. And this alone could potentially account for the anomalous results in this yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study that should essentially be considered a radical outlier in the field.
With the issue of the minimum wage now in the spotlight again, we must keep in mind that the whole debate is a giant workaround. Thus, I will let the late great Buckminster Fuller answer the question:
"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."
And he said this back
in 1970, mind you. With today's technology, it would apply *a fortiori*
to our time, if it weren't for the greedy oligarchs who siphoned up all
the labor productivity gains since then. How do we put his plan into
action, you ask? A Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is the best
and most efficient way to do it. Until then, by all means, raise the
minimum wage. Fight for $15! But the root of the problem ultimately
needs to be tackled as well, especially in a world of increasing
automation and globalization.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Reflections on the Alexandria, Virginia Shooting
On June 14, 2017, James T. Hodgkinson III opened fire on a group of Republican Congressmen practicing for a Congressional baseball game, critically injuring Rep. Steve Scalise and grazing three others. The shooter was shot and killed by police shortly after that. Fortunately, there were no other fatalities.
What we know about the 66 year old shooter from Illinois is that he 1) hated Trump and Republicans in general, 2) was an ardent "Bernie Bro" who hated Hillary at least as much as he hated Trump, 3) had quite a dark side underneath his veneer of progressivism, including a history of domestic/dating violence against women, and 4) was clearly mentally disturbed to one degree or another at the time of the shooting. These are the things we know so far about this angry white man, while anything else is purely speculation.
We at the TSAP whole-heartedly condemn this shooting and any other acts of (non-defensive) political violence of any kind, regardless of who does it or what their political views may be. In fact, Bernie Sanders himself feels the same way, despite the extremist "Bernie Bros" putting words in his mouth in order to push a much darker agenda. But we as progressives are not going to allow our movement to be tarnished by one crazy extremist that does not accurately represent progressivism, especially Bernie's brand, which (unlike fascism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia--in other words, Trumpism) is not an inherently violent ideology. That is the crucial difference here, though it is horrible nonetheless regardless of the political motivation. And when we fight fire with fire, we all get burned in the end.
For those who feel that Hodgkinson was some sort of hero or martyr, we say you couldn't be any more wrong. This guy was a coward who snuck into a baseball practice armed to the teeth, assuming that no one there was armed, and opened fire before anyone knew what was going on. That is nowhere even close to a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination. So get those "warrior" tropes about him right out of your head right now, as he was no warrior.
Additionally, we need to say that "enough is enough" with all of the almost-daily (!) mass shootings these days, and need to pass more sensible gun laws while still respecting the Second Amendment. After all, the shooter is a poster child for why men with a history of domestic/dating violence should not be allowed to buy or own guns of any kind, and that it is far too easy for the mentally ill to get their hands on such killing machines. With no apologies to the NRA or the MRAs (just one letter different), of course. And how ironic that the injured Congressman, Steve Scalise, who had voted to allow the mentally ill to buy guns, was himself shot by such a disturbed individual. We all know what they say about karma, of course. I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
What we know about the 66 year old shooter from Illinois is that he 1) hated Trump and Republicans in general, 2) was an ardent "Bernie Bro" who hated Hillary at least as much as he hated Trump, 3) had quite a dark side underneath his veneer of progressivism, including a history of domestic/dating violence against women, and 4) was clearly mentally disturbed to one degree or another at the time of the shooting. These are the things we know so far about this angry white man, while anything else is purely speculation.
We at the TSAP whole-heartedly condemn this shooting and any other acts of (non-defensive) political violence of any kind, regardless of who does it or what their political views may be. In fact, Bernie Sanders himself feels the same way, despite the extremist "Bernie Bros" putting words in his mouth in order to push a much darker agenda. But we as progressives are not going to allow our movement to be tarnished by one crazy extremist that does not accurately represent progressivism, especially Bernie's brand, which (unlike fascism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia--in other words, Trumpism) is not an inherently violent ideology. That is the crucial difference here, though it is horrible nonetheless regardless of the political motivation. And when we fight fire with fire, we all get burned in the end.
For those who feel that Hodgkinson was some sort of hero or martyr, we say you couldn't be any more wrong. This guy was a coward who snuck into a baseball practice armed to the teeth, assuming that no one there was armed, and opened fire before anyone knew what was going on. That is nowhere even close to a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination. So get those "warrior" tropes about him right out of your head right now, as he was no warrior.
Additionally, we need to say that "enough is enough" with all of the almost-daily (!) mass shootings these days, and need to pass more sensible gun laws while still respecting the Second Amendment. After all, the shooter is a poster child for why men with a history of domestic/dating violence should not be allowed to buy or own guns of any kind, and that it is far too easy for the mentally ill to get their hands on such killing machines. With no apologies to the NRA or the MRAs (just one letter different), of course. And how ironic that the injured Congressman, Steve Scalise, who had voted to allow the mentally ill to buy guns, was himself shot by such a disturbed individual. We all know what they say about karma, of course. I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
Friday, May 26, 2017
Impeachment Or Resignation: It's Only A Matter of Time
Looks like any day now, Trump (and hopefully Pence and the rest of the administration) will be "Out Like Flynn". In fact, former NSA head Michael Flynn apparently decided to "plead the Fifth" about the burgeoning Trump-Russia scandal. But that's not all.
Just when you thought that Trump's really, really messed-up week (in which he fired former FBI director James Comey) was his worst, the past two got even worse still. Most notably, Trump discussed classified information about a terrorist plot in a closed-door meeting with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister, Sergey Kislyak and Sergey Lavrov, respectively. That's right, he literally gave sensitive secrets to the Russians, and willingly. And now, justifiably, Israel won't share intelligence with the USA anymore--especially since they were the source of the intelligence that Trump shared with Russia. Oh, and an independent special prosecutor has been appointed to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation. Just in time for recent revelations (from Kislyak himself) that Jared Kushner wanted a secret communications channel with the Kremlin. I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
But Trump didn't stop there, no. On his recent trip to Europe, he just had to go and insult our NATO allies, especially Germany. He just had to shove the Prime Minister of Montenegro out of the way just to get a quick photo-op. If there were any doubts left that Trump was Putin's puppet on a string, those doubts are basically gone. Ditto for anyone who still thought that he had any sort of class or decorum at all.
And the European intelligence community is supposedly prepared to leak some serious dirt on Trump in the very near future. Whether that dirt is incriminating or merely very embarrassing, either way it does not look good for a president and administration that is already imploding at warp-speed. There is already enough evidence to impeach him for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, conflicts of interest, and perhaps misuse of classified information as well. Will these next leaks be enough to add TREASON to this list as well?
UPDATE: As of May 30, it looks like Michael Flynn is finally ready to break his silence and basically roll over on his former boss. Not like Trump needs any help self-destructing, as he seems to be doing a pretty good job of that already. BIGLY. Believe me.
Just when you thought that Trump's really, really messed-up week (in which he fired former FBI director James Comey) was his worst, the past two got even worse still. Most notably, Trump discussed classified information about a terrorist plot in a closed-door meeting with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister, Sergey Kislyak and Sergey Lavrov, respectively. That's right, he literally gave sensitive secrets to the Russians, and willingly. And now, justifiably, Israel won't share intelligence with the USA anymore--especially since they were the source of the intelligence that Trump shared with Russia. Oh, and an independent special prosecutor has been appointed to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation. Just in time for recent revelations (from Kislyak himself) that Jared Kushner wanted a secret communications channel with the Kremlin. I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
But Trump didn't stop there, no. On his recent trip to Europe, he just had to go and insult our NATO allies, especially Germany. He just had to shove the Prime Minister of Montenegro out of the way just to get a quick photo-op. If there were any doubts left that Trump was Putin's puppet on a string, those doubts are basically gone. Ditto for anyone who still thought that he had any sort of class or decorum at all.
And the European intelligence community is supposedly prepared to leak some serious dirt on Trump in the very near future. Whether that dirt is incriminating or merely very embarrassing, either way it does not look good for a president and administration that is already imploding at warp-speed. There is already enough evidence to impeach him for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, conflicts of interest, and perhaps misuse of classified information as well. Will these next leaks be enough to add TREASON to this list as well?
UPDATE: As of May 30, it looks like Michael Flynn is finally ready to break his silence and basically roll over on his former boss. Not like Trump needs any help self-destructing, as he seems to be doing a pretty good job of that already. BIGLY. Believe me.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
As the Russiagate Scandal Is Exploding, the Trump Administration is Imploding.
It's been a really, really messed-up week for the Trump administration, believe me. And the week hasn't even ended yet!
Let's see: Sally Yates (who Trump previously fired ostensibly for opposing the Muslim Ban, but more likely for knowing too much) and James Clapper both testify about the Russiagate scandal. James Comey, director of the FBI, had requested more resources for the burgeoning Trump-Russia investigation, and the FBI very recently issued grand jury subpoenas for Michael Flynn and his associates in regards to potential collusion with Russia. Trump abruptly fires Comey from his position as head of the FBI, and apparently Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommended that Trump do so. And of course Trump, Pence and others in the administration doggedly deny that the firing had anything to do with the Russiagate investigation (riiiight)--not that that stopped Trump from lawyering up. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer goes into hiding (literally in the bushes!) and refuses to talk to any media other than Faux Noise. He has Sarah Huckabee Sanders stand-in for him and hold a press conference in his place, and it was a total disaster. Move along, nothing to see here folks....
All this in a matter of just three days, and no sign that this will go away anytime soon. It's only a matter of time before Trump, Pence, and perhaps even the entire administration are "Out Like Flynn".
I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
UPDATE: On Thursday, two days after firing Comey, Trump finally admits that it was because of the Russiagate scandal--which of course he still claims is a "made-up story" and "fake news". Riiiiiiight.
Let's see: Sally Yates (who Trump previously fired ostensibly for opposing the Muslim Ban, but more likely for knowing too much) and James Clapper both testify about the Russiagate scandal. James Comey, director of the FBI, had requested more resources for the burgeoning Trump-Russia investigation, and the FBI very recently issued grand jury subpoenas for Michael Flynn and his associates in regards to potential collusion with Russia. Trump abruptly fires Comey from his position as head of the FBI, and apparently Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommended that Trump do so. And of course Trump, Pence and others in the administration doggedly deny that the firing had anything to do with the Russiagate investigation (riiiight)--not that that stopped Trump from lawyering up. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer goes into hiding (literally in the bushes!) and refuses to talk to any media other than Faux Noise. He has Sarah Huckabee Sanders stand-in for him and hold a press conference in his place, and it was a total disaster. Move along, nothing to see here folks....
All this in a matter of just three days, and no sign that this will go away anytime soon. It's only a matter of time before Trump, Pence, and perhaps even the entire administration are "Out Like Flynn".
I swear, you really can't make this stuff up!
UPDATE: On Thursday, two days after firing Comey, Trump finally admits that it was because of the Russiagate scandal--which of course he still claims is a "made-up story" and "fake news". Riiiiiiight.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
In Defense of Nationalism
Nationalism. That is a word that gets thrown around all the time, usually with a rather negative connotation. It seems to have many definitions these days in fact.
Recently, author E.D. Hirsch, Jr. penned an excellent article in Democracy Journal, aptly titled "A Sense of Belonging". In it, he discusses how misunderstood, underrated, and often unfairly maligned the concept of nationalism in the USA has been for the past several decades, and how our lack of the sense of belonging that nationalism provides has left Americans alienated and discontented. He discusses how our educational system (particularly elementary school) has been recently failing to impart the essentials of a shared national culture, history, and citizenship, and how the left's overzealous avoidance of the (very real) dark side of nationalism ultimately ends up throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The trends of the past several decades towards both hyper-individualism as well as an explicit anti-nationalism end up inhibiting our overall social cohesion and sense of community, with negative consequences resulting. And this is coming from an author who one can safely say is on the political left himself.
He basically argues, in a more eloquent and detailed fashion, something not very different from when Bernie Sanders famously cautioned fellow progressives against overreliance on "identity politics". While this was not very well received and he came across as tone-deaf and failing to check his white straight male (etc.) privilege, he was not in fact against such intersectionality at all. Rather, he was concerned that focusing too much on the pluribus at the expense of the unum would be detrimental to the overall progressive movement. Which in turn would make it harder to maintain a united front against our real enemy, the oligarchy. And while he did not use the word "nationalism" by name, it was certainly implied that the left needs to reclaim nationalism, lest it fall into the hands of the right--which did in fact happen. Consider the following chillingly prophetic words by Richard Rorty in 1994:
"The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone to assure them that once he is elected the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodern professors will no longer be calling the shots. . . . All the sadism which the academic left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back."
Which basically describes the whole Trump phenomenon in a nutshell. That is what happens when the left neglects the need for nationalism: disaffected voters will seek it out from other sources, namely the right. And the right's version is virtually always going to be toxic and jingoistic, if not altogether racist, fascist, and authoritarian. There is a reason why so many Trump supporters openly call themselves "white nationalists", after all.
Nationalism can indeed be a very good thing if it is of the proper sort and in the right hands, while the wrong sort and/or in the wrong hands can indeed be horrific. All the more reason to reclaim it from the right. To quote Hirsch:
"The right kind of modern nationalism is communal, intent on including everyone. The wrong, exclusivist kind, exemplified by the racism of the Nazis, gave all nationalism a bad name and helped turn the post-Vietnam left away from nationalism of any sort. The sentiment was that most countries are pretty bad, especially big ones that prey on little ones."
As we like to say, nationalism is like nitroglycerine: it can either be used to blow up bridges or heal hearts. And the TSAP represents the good kind of nationalism that is so desperately needed to heal the wounded and heavy heart of America.
Recently, author E.D. Hirsch, Jr. penned an excellent article in Democracy Journal, aptly titled "A Sense of Belonging". In it, he discusses how misunderstood, underrated, and often unfairly maligned the concept of nationalism in the USA has been for the past several decades, and how our lack of the sense of belonging that nationalism provides has left Americans alienated and discontented. He discusses how our educational system (particularly elementary school) has been recently failing to impart the essentials of a shared national culture, history, and citizenship, and how the left's overzealous avoidance of the (very real) dark side of nationalism ultimately ends up throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The trends of the past several decades towards both hyper-individualism as well as an explicit anti-nationalism end up inhibiting our overall social cohesion and sense of community, with negative consequences resulting. And this is coming from an author who one can safely say is on the political left himself.
He basically argues, in a more eloquent and detailed fashion, something not very different from when Bernie Sanders famously cautioned fellow progressives against overreliance on "identity politics". While this was not very well received and he came across as tone-deaf and failing to check his white straight male (etc.) privilege, he was not in fact against such intersectionality at all. Rather, he was concerned that focusing too much on the pluribus at the expense of the unum would be detrimental to the overall progressive movement. Which in turn would make it harder to maintain a united front against our real enemy, the oligarchy. And while he did not use the word "nationalism" by name, it was certainly implied that the left needs to reclaim nationalism, lest it fall into the hands of the right--which did in fact happen. Consider the following chillingly prophetic words by Richard Rorty in 1994:
"The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone to assure them that once he is elected the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodern professors will no longer be calling the shots. . . . All the sadism which the academic left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back."
Which basically describes the whole Trump phenomenon in a nutshell. That is what happens when the left neglects the need for nationalism: disaffected voters will seek it out from other sources, namely the right. And the right's version is virtually always going to be toxic and jingoistic, if not altogether racist, fascist, and authoritarian. There is a reason why so many Trump supporters openly call themselves "white nationalists", after all.
Nationalism can indeed be a very good thing if it is of the proper sort and in the right hands, while the wrong sort and/or in the wrong hands can indeed be horrific. All the more reason to reclaim it from the right. To quote Hirsch:
"The right kind of modern nationalism is communal, intent on including everyone. The wrong, exclusivist kind, exemplified by the racism of the Nazis, gave all nationalism a bad name and helped turn the post-Vietnam left away from nationalism of any sort. The sentiment was that most countries are pretty bad, especially big ones that prey on little ones."
As we like to say, nationalism is like nitroglycerine: it can either be used to blow up bridges or heal hearts. And the TSAP represents the good kind of nationalism that is so desperately needed to heal the wounded and heavy heart of America.
Friday, May 5, 2017
The "Spiritual Ruin" of a Universal Basic Income? No, Not Really.
Recently, there was an article in The Week by Damon Linker titled, "The Spiritual Ruin of a Universal Basic Income". He basically argues that it is a bad idea for the left to pursue the idea of a UBI because 1) it fails to address (and perhaps even intensify) the psychological and spiritual consequences of joblessness, which are (in his view) distinct from and worse than the economic consequences, 2) most people couldn't handle joblessness even with a basic income and would thus become depressed and purposeless and give themselves over to video games, porn, and/or drug addiction, and 3) the left should not concede that automation (and the resulting job losses) is in any way inevitable.
And all of these things are in fact false.
First, only a person of relative privilege could possibly see the economic consequences of joblessness as entirely separate from, and less significant that, the (admittedly real) psychological and spiritual consequences of same. The former can indeed cause or contribute to the latter in a big way, and it is very difficult to disentangle them. Poverty and desperation are well-known to be harmful to the mind, body, and spirit, and only meaningful work (as opposed to work for the sake of work) can be said to be beneficial to same. When the economic consequences are resolved via a UBI, the remaining noneconomic consequences of unemployment would in fact become that much easier to tackle.
Second, there is no logical reason why a UBI and the sort of New Deal 2.0 jobs program that Linker advocates would be mutually exclusive. The TSAP, in fact, advocates exactly that combination, with both a UBI and a Job Guarantee program for everyone who wants one. We also advocate shortening the workweek as well, which would spread the remaining work among more workers, thus more jobs. Thus the noneconomic consequences of joblessness can also be adequately dealt with as well. So that is not a valid reason for the left to abandon the idea, anymore than it would be a reason to abandon the idea of a social safety net in general.
Third, the idea that UBI will cause most people or even a particularly large chunk of the population to become lazy and/or self-destructive is not borne out by the facts. Numerous experiments with UBI and related schemes have been conducted in diverse cultures and locations in the past half-century, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly suggests that this will not occur. If anything, one notable effect is an increase in entrepreneurship due to a decreased fear of failure and more time and money to invest in their goals. Students and new mothers will likely work fewer hours than before since they are no longer forced by dint of economic necessity (the effect on hours worked is likely negligible for everyone else), but is that really such a bad thing? Of course not.
Nor is there any credible evidence that substance abuse would significantly increase either as a result of UBI, and it may even decrease. But just to drive the point home even further, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sam Altman argues that even if 90% of the population sat around smoked weed and played video games instead of working, a UBI would still better on balance than not having one, as everyone would be free to pursue their passions and the remaining 10% would innovatively create new wealth. Not that he thinks that 90% would actually do that, of course, but the point was well-made nonetheless. One can also point to the Rat Park studies as well. It is amazing how addiction diminishes or even disappears when rats (or people) are not treated like caged animals in the "rat race"!
And finally, a real pragmatist would realize than automation really is inevitable in the long run. Contrary to what the neo-Luddites like to argue, fighting against it will not stop it, only delay it a bit. The best that we progressives can do is admit that fact and do whatever we can to ensure that the fruits of this automation will benefit all of humanity and not just the oligarchs at the top. To do so, we must take the power back from the oligarchs. And a crucial step to that goal is a Universal Basic Income, so We the People can actually have some bargaining power, no longer dependent on our employers for survivial. Whether we get this one right will basically be the difference between a futuristic pragmatic utopia (as Buckminster Fuller envisioned) or a horrifying technocratic dystopia straight out of 1984, Brave New World, or [insert other dystopian novel here]. So let's choose the right side of history!
After all, as the late, great Buckminster Fuller--the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century, famously said in 1970:
Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society. So what are we waiting for?
And all of these things are in fact false.
First, only a person of relative privilege could possibly see the economic consequences of joblessness as entirely separate from, and less significant that, the (admittedly real) psychological and spiritual consequences of same. The former can indeed cause or contribute to the latter in a big way, and it is very difficult to disentangle them. Poverty and desperation are well-known to be harmful to the mind, body, and spirit, and only meaningful work (as opposed to work for the sake of work) can be said to be beneficial to same. When the economic consequences are resolved via a UBI, the remaining noneconomic consequences of unemployment would in fact become that much easier to tackle.
Second, there is no logical reason why a UBI and the sort of New Deal 2.0 jobs program that Linker advocates would be mutually exclusive. The TSAP, in fact, advocates exactly that combination, with both a UBI and a Job Guarantee program for everyone who wants one. We also advocate shortening the workweek as well, which would spread the remaining work among more workers, thus more jobs. Thus the noneconomic consequences of joblessness can also be adequately dealt with as well. So that is not a valid reason for the left to abandon the idea, anymore than it would be a reason to abandon the idea of a social safety net in general.
Third, the idea that UBI will cause most people or even a particularly large chunk of the population to become lazy and/or self-destructive is not borne out by the facts. Numerous experiments with UBI and related schemes have been conducted in diverse cultures and locations in the past half-century, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence strongly suggests that this will not occur. If anything, one notable effect is an increase in entrepreneurship due to a decreased fear of failure and more time and money to invest in their goals. Students and new mothers will likely work fewer hours than before since they are no longer forced by dint of economic necessity (the effect on hours worked is likely negligible for everyone else), but is that really such a bad thing? Of course not.
Nor is there any credible evidence that substance abuse would significantly increase either as a result of UBI, and it may even decrease. But just to drive the point home even further, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sam Altman argues that even if 90% of the population sat around smoked weed and played video games instead of working, a UBI would still better on balance than not having one, as everyone would be free to pursue their passions and the remaining 10% would innovatively create new wealth. Not that he thinks that 90% would actually do that, of course, but the point was well-made nonetheless. One can also point to the Rat Park studies as well. It is amazing how addiction diminishes or even disappears when rats (or people) are not treated like caged animals in the "rat race"!
And finally, a real pragmatist would realize than automation really is inevitable in the long run. Contrary to what the neo-Luddites like to argue, fighting against it will not stop it, only delay it a bit. The best that we progressives can do is admit that fact and do whatever we can to ensure that the fruits of this automation will benefit all of humanity and not just the oligarchs at the top. To do so, we must take the power back from the oligarchs. And a crucial step to that goal is a Universal Basic Income, so We the People can actually have some bargaining power, no longer dependent on our employers for survivial. Whether we get this one right will basically be the difference between a futuristic pragmatic utopia (as Buckminster Fuller envisioned) or a horrifying technocratic dystopia straight out of 1984, Brave New World, or [insert other dystopian novel here]. So let's choose the right side of history!
After all, as the late, great Buckminster Fuller--the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century, famously said in 1970:
We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. A win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society. So what are we waiting for?
Trumpcare 2.0 Passes The House
Well, the Rethuglicans finally did it. On May 4, 2017, they passed a new and even crueler version of Trumpcare in the House. Apparently it was cruel enough to win over the arch-conservatives, since it guts Medicaid and throws people with pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions under the bus. It will ultimately result in roughly 24 million people losing their healthcare coverage if it becomes law.
Fortunately, though, it does not seem likely to pass the Senate. Thus the Senate is working on their own milder version of it to appease the moderates, which means that if it passes, they will still have to hammer out the differences between the two bills. It's either alienate the moderates to appease the conservatives, or alienate the conservatives to appease the moderates. And that will likely be the sort of catch-22 that ultimately kills Trumpcare once and for all.
Fortunately, though, it does not seem likely to pass the Senate. Thus the Senate is working on their own milder version of it to appease the moderates, which means that if it passes, they will still have to hammer out the differences between the two bills. It's either alienate the moderates to appease the conservatives, or alienate the conservatives to appease the moderates. And that will likely be the sort of catch-22 that ultimately kills Trumpcare once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
