Mile 181: Fourth Anniversary

I just noticed that today, January 11, 2013, is the fourth anniversary of my first post on Mile 181.

In January, 2009, I was beginning my second year as a Town commissioner.

I had by then been accused of conspiring in secret with other commissioners to modify town ordinances, most notably the noise ordinance. In fact, I had been scrupulous in discussing any public issue with other commissioners one at a time, rather than with two or more. The open meetings act plainly precluded negotiating with enough other commissioners to constitute a majority. So I didn't do that.

It occurred to me that nothing in the Open Meetings Act prevented me from making my positions on issues known to the public at large. I decided that a blog might be a good way to do that.

I started my blog in January, 2009. Here is my first post, explaining my take on the noise problem and my approach to solving it.

In the end, the Board of Commissioners passed a noise ordinance containing a measurable, objective standard. I would have liked it to be a bit more stringent, but when doing the people's business, you have to persuade a majority of the governing body to vote your way. Sometimes that requires more trimming of sails than one might prefer, but compromise is the price of success and the greatest challenge.

I make no apologies for the ordinance.

The ordinance is probably the main reason I wasn't reelected.

I note that subsequent Boards of Commissioners haven't repealed the ordinance.

I also note that I now have occasional readers on every continent. 

Campaign Expenses - Nothing New

Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.

Will Rogers

Fiscal Cliff Hanger

I say, again: we have a persistent economic crisis, but right now that crisis is jobs, not deficit. The deficit is a consequence, not a cause of job loss.

The looming 'fiscal cliff" is itself a consequence of a disastrous agreement last year to persuade Republicans not to throw the country into renewed, deep recession by refusing to raise the debt limit - essentially refusing to pay our bills.

No one disputes that, in the long run, we must reduce deficits. Reduce them back to the levels of the last two years of the Clinton administration.

But first we have to put people back to work. But Republican obstructionists don't want the economy to succeed. They will continue to obstruct economic progress.

At the state level, further obstruction will proceed apace in every state whose government is dominated by Republicans. We are about to enter that category here in North Carolina.

I don't make this stuff up, but I do read a lot of what is said by the best economists.

One of the economists I follow is Jared Bernstein. He's a very clear writer and thinker. Today he examines the question of what the last year has taught us about economic beliefs that have not served us well. Here's his summary.

Are We Totally Helpless?

Where is the outrage? Where is the agony? Where is the will?

December 14, 2012, is a date that should live in infamy. But there have been too many such dates.

We are all heartbroken that such a thing can happen.

Now is the time to grieve for the senseless deaths of 20 young children and six of their teachers and administrators.

Tomorrow is the time for action. And anger, but a focused anger.

Anger at whom? It does no good to be angry at Adam Lanza, a troubled soul not given the healing he needed. In any event, he is now beyond our anger or our healing.

We should seek out and focus some of our anger on those who arm unbalanced people and set them loose on ourselves, our families and our children. Who could do such a thing? Look in the mirror. We have all looked the other way as pusillanimous politicians too frightened to stand up to extremists in an industrial lobby (the NRA) refused to focus on protecting our children.

We have averted our eyes from those who fail to provide adequately for treatment of mental disorders. A glance at Adam Lanza's eyes in the most widely published photo would suggest to any viewer that something is not right. But research, diagnosis and treatment are expensive. So all too often we pass the cost on to the families of those afflicted or to fellow citizens in their vicinity when they lose touch with reality.

What was wrong with Adam Lanza? Some say he suffered from a form of high functioning autism. Others say he could not read body language - another way of saying the same thing. He plainly lacked empathy with his victims - yet another way of saying the same thing.

A word some use to describe such behavior is "Asperger's syndrome."

In general, psychologists don't associate Asperger's with violence, but research seems sparse. Here is a link to one very brief study. Asperger's has only been recognized since about 1994 and is about to be reclassified as part of a larger class: "autism spectrum disorders." This case cries out for a more complete study.

Public safety is at stake.

Guns are too readily available. That is often used as a reason for inaction. We will not be able to achieve perfect success. Too hard.

Let's get the issue out of the "too hard" file.

Perfection need not be the goal. Any improvement will help.

Another group to focus on are those who denigrate our teachers. Remember: six teachers and administrators went into harm's way to protect their children. Why would anyone believe the same teachers were any less dedicated to the education of the children in their charge than to their safety? Who among our self-appointed education "experts" or elected officials know anything about how to educate children but the latest fads among people of their own political persuasion?

 I said focus our anger. What I really mean is focus our determination. In particular, focus on our elected officials who follow aggressive policies of arming everyone with concealed weapons.

Americans are said to own around 270 to 300 million guns. What for?

Gun laws vary from state to state. In California guns can be sold only through licensed dealers. Would-be buyers must wait ten days to get their hands on a gun so they can be checked out.These laws were put in place under Governor Ronald Reagan, largely in reaction to fears of the Black Panthers.

In Arizona adults without a criminal record can go to a dealer with ID and get a firearm on the spot. Who are Arizonans afraid of?

Many states relaxed gun laws in recent years. Virginia and New Mexico now let people take guns into bars. Texas and Utah allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in schools. Wyatt Earp would never have allowed that.

Last Friday — the day Adam Lanza killed 26 students and teachers in an elementary school, Michigan passed a law allowing concealed weapons in schools, churches and hospitals. What, we want to turn our schools into "gunfight at the OK corral?"

On a typical day in America around 100 people are shot. American children are 13 times more likely to be killed with a gun than those in any other country. Do we love our children? Let's control our guns. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

Since Obama became president, there have been eleven large scale mass shootings:

November 2009, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot 13 people dead at Fort Hood, Texas.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was one of 17 victims of a mass shooting in January 2011 in Tucson, Arizona. She survived. Six others, including a nine year old girl, died.

In July James Holmes killed 12 and injured 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado.

And Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But there are others. This year alone, there have been 13 multiple murders, including Sandy Hook.

The killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday were in a class by themselves. Connecticut’s chief medical examiner said the children he examined had been shot between three and 11 times. He added: “I have been at this more than a third of a century. This is the worst I have seen.” Police found the bodies of 14 children and teacher Lauren Rousseau huddled together in a heap.

Maybe we can't completely end such occurrences, but we have to try.

Here are some things we can do:

1. Reinstate a permanent assault weapons ban; 
2. Create a federal registry for licenses and gun ownership, contingent upon safety training and proper storage education (currently prohibited by the Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986);
3. End the “Gun Show Loophole” to the Brady Law, mandating that every gun purchaser be subject to mandatory background checks and wait periods;
4. Oppose concealed carry laws;
5. Mandate permanent gun serial numbers – end gun trafficking;
6. Mandate ballistic fingerprinting– this means being able to trace a bullet back to a specific gun, not just a make;
7. Encourage universal child-safety locks – we child-proof our Tylenol and our cars, why not our guns?
8. Limit purchases to “one gun per month” or “one gun per three months” laws –prevent traffickers from stockpiling guns for the black-market;
9. Most important of all - do away with the fiction (former Chief Justice Warren Burger called it a "fraud") that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to own firearms. "To bear arms" is a term of art that means "to serve in the military." The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent establishment of a large standing army.It failed in that purpose long ago.

Regulation of firearms is properly a political issue, not a constitutional issue. There was a time when the NRA understood that. A time before NRA adopted the doctrine of Huey Newton.

Right To Work For Less

Those of us who have studied 20th Century history, especially the history of authoritarian or fascist dictatorships have observed a pattern. Dictators seek to control the media, control the schools and control or destroy the labor unions.

I was reminded of this during the past week as the Republican government in Michigan pressed during a lame duck session to destroy unions in Michigan. Michigan is not alone. They are now one of twenty-four states with so-called "right to work" laws.

"Right to work" as many observers have noted, really means "right to work for less." The term itself is an example of Orwellian language which means the opposite of what it seems to mean. Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post does a very good job explaining the historical background. Meyerson shows the similarity in the aim of "right to work" and efforts by the Communist leadership in China to control and benefit from the profits of improved productivity.

In our country, it isn't the government, but those who control the finance system, who have stolen the lion's share of increased productivity for themselves.

Political Contributions To Presidential Candidates

Washington Post's Harold Meyerson has put together an analysis of the major groups of contributors to the Obama and Romney campaigns.

The results are very interesting. Meyerson summarizes:

"Obama won overwhelming backing from the most productive and innovative sector of American capitalism. Romney won the backing of finance and casinos, whose contributions to American productivity and well-being are more difficult to discern, and which are industries based on reshuffling resources in games the house almost always wins. Obama, if you will, won the makers; Romney, the takers."

That observation is based on where serious money came from. It is quite a different matter to analyze where the votes came from and why.

I'll save that for later.

Public Opinion

A new survey revealed that 39% of Americans have an opinion about the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

Good news that so many are paying attention and giving these weighty issues careful thought, right? As it turns out, they also seem to be following the Panetta-Burns plan. Twenty-five percent of voters either support or oppose Panetta-Burns.

Problem is, there is no Panetta-Burns plan.

By the way, if you are a little hazy on Simpson-Bowles, here  is a good summary.

Republicans Are Nuts

Maybe I should amend the title: Some Republicans are Nuts. Rick Santorum, for example.

Today's headline:

Senate rejects treaty to protect disabled around the world

 The article: here.

As far as I can tell (it's just a guess), Santorum is afraid some black helicopter is going to swoop in from UN headquarters and take his tin foil hat away.

Jon Kyl seems to oppose it on the theory that some of the signatories are bad people and won't comply, even though they have signed. 

It is embarrassing to the country and should be embarrassing to the Republican Party that 38 senators voted against an international version of Senator Bob Dole's signature accomplishment, the ADA.

 Update: A Washington Post op-ed explains why the 38 Republicans who voted against the international treaty to protect the disabled were not only wrong (nuts), but also cowardly. They tried to hide their votes not only from constituents but also from Senator Dole, to whom many had promised support. They knew it was nuts, but were afraid to oppose the crazies. Does that make then "chicken nuts?"

Social Security And The Deficit

I listened to about as much as I could take of Meet The Press this morning. The conversation about negotiations over the Fiscal Cliff was particularly inane.

Worse than that, it was dangerous for the future of American working people.

Let me try to put it clearly:

1.  Our budget deficits have not caused a loss of jobs;

2.  Our loss of jobs has caused the budget deficits;

3.  Job one is jobs;

4.  Reduced federal spending right now will increase unemployment;

5.  The super rich don't create jobs;

6.  Spending by ordinary citizens does create jobs;

7.  Republicans do not now and never have been concerned about deficit spending - their concern is that ordinary people rather than the super wealthy might benefit;

8.  Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.

Here are some recent blog posts that address the issues. Rather than attempt to summarize them, I'll just post the links:


http://baselinescenario.com/2012/11/28/social-security-and-the-national-debt/

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/when-youre-trying-to-decide-if-we-need-to-renew-the-payroll-tax-break-picture-this/

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/12/should-we-extend-the-payroll-tax-cut.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/republican-party-zero-credibility_b_2219085.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/the-full-mcconnell/

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/12/lets-get-serious-about-getting-serious.html

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/30/fiscal-cliff-fictions-lets-all-agree-to-pretend-the-gop-isnt-full-of-it/ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/krugman-the-big-budget-mumble.html?ref=opinion

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/11/the-outlook-has-already-improved.html 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction

Read them all. There are more, but these are enough to get the idea. From the Republican point of view, the only proposals that qualify as "serious" are those that hurt poor and middle class citizens and benefit the well off. They and their supporters are willing to spend big bucks promoting such ideas and opposing ideas that benefit working people.

The only way ordinary working people can stand up to the plutocrats and their stooges and dupes is to use the vote.

Another Good Piece By Bruce Bartlett

I've been reading articles by Bruce Bartlett recently with a sense of wonder. As in, I wonder when and why he started to make good sense.

Here, he answers that question in an article in The American Conservative.

I admire writers and thinkers who are concerned with policies that work (or could work) instead of personalities or doctrine.

Good for Bruce Bartlett.

As for his revelations about the Murdoch empire - suspicions confirmed.

House Of Representatives Problem

D.R. and M.D., writing in The Economist blog Democracy in America, take issue with Speaker Boehner's claim that the American people have given the House of Representatives a mandate by electing a Republican majority. They point out that the American people gave more votes to Democratic candidates for the house than to Republican members and attribute the Republican majority to successful gerrymandering: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/congressional-representation-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/callvotersuppression

Their blog post is interesting, because it addresses a number of problems with some of our historical assumptions about representation. The main issue the blog post addresses is that the maldistribution of seats in the house.

The authors do point out that "It is not the first time that a party has won a majority of seats in the House despite receiving fewer votes than its rival. Mr Gingrich’s team won re-election and a 26-seat majority in 1996, on 47.8% of the vote to 48.1% for the Democrats. In 1942 Sam Rayburn managed to attain a 13-seat majority for the Democrats in the mid-terms, even though his party won 46% of the vote to the Republicans’ 51% (small wonder that Rayburn holds the record as the longest-serving speaker). But rarely does it produce such a skewed result as we've seen in the House this year."

Actually, Sam Rayburn's accomplishment is less impressive when you realize it took place in an era before the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr which established the principle of "one person, one vote." In other words, each member of Congress must represent an approximately equal number of citizens. That was not the case in 1942.

D.R. and M.D. tentatively suggest proportional representation as a way to avoid this problem, and then quickly back off because it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not so sure. The Constitution doesn't even mention Congressional Districts. There may be ways without such an amendment.

I posted some thoughts on the subject last May:

Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.

Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?

A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."

Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.

We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First Congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.

Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the Constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.

My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.

How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might just as well force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.

How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.

Originally Posted May 29, 2012 

Note: I would actually prefer proportional representation. Failing that unlikely outcome, a possible (but not necessary) consequence of enlarging the House might be to increase the possibility of third (or fourth...) parties. It might at least make it harder to have the kind of lock step voting patterns we see on the Republican side of the House today.

Racist Dog Whistle Factory: Lee Atwater

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Lee Atwater, 1981

Here's a complete article from The Nation with complete audio of a 1981 conversation with Lee Atwater.

Washington Post Fact Checking

I have mixed views about the proliferation of "fact checkers" as a specialty in many newspapers. I am of the view that reporters themselves should verify the truth of assertions made by interviewees, rather than "he-said, she-said" reports equating two sides. For one thing, there are often if not usually more than two sides to any controversy.

On balance, it is better to have fact checking than not. Still, it is not clear that we must trust the objectivity of the "fact checkers" themselves. Who checks the "fact checkers."

I have been particularly disappointed in the Washington Post "fact checker," Glenn Kessler. Particularly in the area of the national economy, he has from time to time awarded numerous "pinocchios" to statements that were actually true.

Today Kessler takes on Senator John McCain's comments about UN Ambassador Susan Rice's comments on "Face The Nation" on September 16 concerning the Benghazi raid. Kessler reviews the statement and makes it absolutely clear that John McCain completely misrepresents her comments and the context of them. In short, McCain's attack on Rice is a lie.

Kessler awards McCain two pinocchios.

Here is Kessler's scale:

"The Pinocchio Test

Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers."

Reasonable people can differ as to whether Kessler's own fact checking justifies four pinocchios  or only three. But two? No way!

And Now A Word From David Frum

David Frum, George W. Bush speechwriter, appeared on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. Here is what Frum had to say about the Republican Party:

I believe the Republican Party is a party of followership. The problem with the Republican leaders is that they're cowards.... The real locus of the problem is the Republican activist base and the Republican donor base. They went apocalyptic over the past four years. And that was exploited by a lot of people in the conservative world. I won't soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of a major conservative institution when he told me that our donors think the apocalypse has arrived.

Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex.... Because the followers, the donors and the activists are so mistaken about the nature of the problems the country faces the nature--I mean, it's just a simple question. I went to Tea Party rallies and I would ask this question: "have taxes gone up or down in the past four years?" They could not answer that question correctly. Now it's true that taxes will go up if the President is re-elected. That's why we're Republicans. But you have to know that taxes have not gone up in the past. And "do we spend a trillion dollars on welfare?" Is that true or false? It is false. But it is almost universally believed.

That means that the leaders have no space to operate.

Painted themselves into a corner? Not sure I believe that.

Russia And Democracy

A wise professor of mine, Marshall D. Shulman, used to observe (in the 1960's) that the United States and the Soviet Union had a "limited adversary relationship."

His point was, that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union, even in the depths of the Cold War, was committed to the destruction of the other. In fact,the two countries cooperated in a number of efforts to limit the danger of war. One such effort was the agreement to limit incidents at sea. Concluded in 1972 under President Nixon, the agreement established an annual bilateral review of incidents and measures to lessen the possibility of conflict and misunderstanding. I had a minor role in hosting one of the meetings in Washington.

Measures to keep the relationship between the United States and the successor state of Russia a productive one, continues to be a challenge.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the United States Agency for International Development provided assistance to Russia in converting to a market economy. Among the most promising efforts was called the "rule of law" program. Other efforts included assistance in establishing democracy in the former Soviet Union.

These efforts are all in jeopardy, according to a report in the New York Times.

It isn't a surprise, but it doesn't help bilateral relations.

Even so, you do business with the countries that exist - not the ones you imagine.

Campaign News Roundup For The Young

Sunday Review

The Strip | By Brian McFadden

September 9, 2012

This post is a bit late, but I thought it was kinda fun. I continue to be amazed at what the younger generation doesn't know or understand about American history and our political system. I think this is the sort of thing retired Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Conner has tried to address. Not apparent she is making much headway.

Romney Killed Bin Laden?

Very interesting post by Dylan Matthews in yesterday's Washington Post about a recent Public Policy Polling report from Ohio. The most surprising response to polling questions was that 15% of Republicans polled expressed the opinion that Romney was responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

How could that be?

Matthews examines some relevant scholarly analysis of polling and presents some possible explanations. He summarizes the analysis: "....voters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like. And killing bin Laden is a policy outcome they do like. And so partisan effects have led some Republicans to argue that Obama was not primarily responsible for killing bin Laden or, even more absurdly, that Romney was responsible."

I recommend the whole article. It is also worthwhile reading the referenced scholarly articles as well.

It explains why a campaign operative might say "we won't let our campaign be driven by fact checkers."

Democracy In America

Last May I came across a blog titled Middle Class Political Economist.  The post that caught my eye was an examination of over representation of rural areas in the US Congress. I thought it was a good discussion of an issue I had long pondered.

So I offered the following comments:

Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.

Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?

A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."

Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.

We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.

Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.

My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.

How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.

How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.

Originally Posted May 29, 2012

How To Be A Republican

• You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
• You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.
• You have to believe...everything Rush Limbaugh says.
• You have to believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.
• You have to be against government interference in business, until your oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke and you beg for a government bail out.
• You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher.

- Ann Richards

[Alternate to the first item: "born on third base, but thought he hit a triple."]

The late Ann Richards had a real Texas accent. Her comments may seem a bit dated, but not all that much.

On Poverty And Government

Economist Jared Bernstein brings to our attention an illuminating graph showing data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a body made up of the world's 20 most advanced economies. What the graph shows is that all 20 advanced countries alleviate poverty to some extent by redistribution payments.

The poverty rate of the United States before redistribution is 26.3%; very close to the 26.4% average of the other 19 member states.

After redistribution, however, is a completely different story. The poverty rate of American citizens after taking redistribution into account is at the bottom - 20th among OECD countries.

"We're number 20" isn't such an inspiring chant. Here's the graph:



We're the richest country in the world and that's the best we can do?