You can't raise taxes on the rich!

As we keep being told, if you tax the "producers", the "job creators", the "achievers", then they will stop doing what they do.  If taxes are too high, then it is not worth your time to try and be productive.  You are better off collecting welfare and living off the state.  This is especially true if welfare is robust and generous, like it is now.

So lets assume I make 1 million dollars.  Right now, if that is all on regular income and not capital gains, I will have to pay 36% to the government in income tax.  That is the lowest percentage that has been required form the top top bracket in over 50 years.  So I am pretty happy with that.  I get to keep $640,000.  But if you raise my taxes to 39% (like they were under Bill Clinton, when job creaton and economic growth were MUCH stronger), then I will only get to bring home $610,000.  What's the point?  I might as well not work if I only get to keep $610,000.  I'll quit and go on welfare. I mean, really.  With welfare, I get $1,000 a month for doing nothing.  Or I can work hard and only make an additional $49,000 per month.  Why bother.

So maybe the "producers" won't go on welfare, but they'll leave the country.  The free-market devotee's should know that this will produce a void that someone else will fill.  That's the magic of the free market, baby.  And the social Darwinists should know that nature abhors a  vacuum.  Someone else will step up and "produce".  If all the employers left America, guess what?  Other people would become employers.  They seem to argue that there exists a ruling class of elite "producers" who must be courted or else they will leave our poor country of losers to wither and die.   If we educate our masses, any of us could become the next Bill Gates.  If we educate our masses, we will have more Bill Gates's, more "producers", and more things to sell to the rest of the world.

Andrew Carnagie made his fortune when taxes were as high as 90%.   So don't tell me that people won't produce unless they get to keep it all.  I think that if the top tax rate was returned to what it was in the Clinton era, that the "producers" would keep working.  If they pack it up and leave, others will take their place.  They are crying that "the sky is falling" because of greed.  They get to keep more than ever before, and it's still not enough.

Now, I do not assert that raising taxes alone will fix our financial mess.  We need to reign in spending.  We need to cut waste, fraud, and abuse.  But the #1 culprit for waste is the Pentagon, which is the one place that the conservatives refuse to look at.  Don't be fooled.  Those who are arguing loudest are not concerned with fiscal responsibility, fairness, nor sustainability.  They are concerned with getting theirs.

Protecting the status quo really helps those at the top

Those at the top will always say whatever they can to protect their position. It's "class warfare", it's "stifling job creation", it's "punishing entrepreneurialism", "manifest destiny", "God's will", the "social contract", whatever.  Even Confucious was used to convince the masses that they had a societal obligation to never question why some people were the haves and others were not.  So we should not be surprised that, while they are amassing and keeping more than ever before, that they argue like hell that things need to never change or change only in ways that will benefit them alone. 

The Keystone Oil Pipeline

The less-than-stringent EPA did not think this was a good idea.  So the Obama administration took it away from them and put the State department in charge of it. 

What the administration is about to approve is a 36-inch pipeline to carry tar sand oil from Canada to Houston, Tx.  It will cost 13 billion dollars to build and will then transport the tar sand oil to Houston for refining and distribution.  Tar sand oil is solidified petroleum that requires about 5-6 barrels worth of oil to heat up enough to produce one barrel of new oil.  The sand has to be heated to melt and extract the oil, and this requires a lot of energy (they are debating whether to build a nuclear or coal plant to do the heating).  Then the oil that is produced is the dirtiest-burning oil possible.  So it costs a lot of carbon to produce and releases a lot of carbon when burned. 

But the biggest problem is that these pipelines leak.  In May of 2011, a leak sprayed 60 feet into the air and leaked 21,000 gallons of this toxic material in just nine minutes.   There was another leak in Kansas just 20 days later. 

Now, I am all for creating jobs in America, but I don't understand why we want this vulnerable pipeline going all the way across our country.  If we want to transport it to the US for refining, why not build a refinery in Washington or Oregon?  Can't we build a refinery for under 13 billion?  And after the initial construction, Texas will be the sole beneficiary.  Rick Perry's main selling point is that Texas has created a lot of jobs (although he rightfully does not deserve credit for most of them).  Jeopardizing the rest of the country so that Texas can have more jobs does not seem like a good idea to me. 

It's bad for the planet, bad for the country, and good for your political rivals.  Mr. Obama, please do not approve this project.  Instead, lets spend 13 billion on renewable energy sources like wind, solar, etc. 

The problem with low interest rates

Interest rates are at historic lows.  And the Federal Reserve has pledged to keep them low for another two years.  What does that do? 

That encourages borrowing.  That encourages living beyond your means.  That discourages savings.  I grew up being told to put my money in the bank.  Right now, savings accounts pay 0.1% interest.  There is no reward- there is no reason to put your money in the bank. 

So what happens to a populace that has no savings?  They become vulnerable.  Then they can be manipulated.  Then they can be enslaved (financially).  There needs to be spending for our consumer-based economy to exist.  But that should be balanced by savings.

I don't think the low interest rates have helped our recovery.  I think we should consider raising them a little and see what that does.  It would encourage me to put some more in the bank.   

Striking a balance

Communism and Socialism focus on the good of the masses; sometimes to the detriment of the individual.  Capitalism and Libertarianism focus on the good of the individual with no regard to the impact on the rest of society.   As humans, we are both A PART OF the group and APART FROM it.  Both idealogies cannot work sustainably if implimented 100%.  So there has to be a balance between what is good for me and what is good for the rest of my fellow human beings (who I consider to be extended family).  The functioning and prospering societies in the world right now strike a balance somewhere between 30/70 and 70/30 Capitalist/Socialist.  I think that we can tinker with the balance between those benchmarks.  But to go too far in either direction is ridiculous.  I hear a lot more talk about moving to 100% capitalism than I do about eliminating it completely.   Those who say there should be no regulation, no safeguards, no taxation, no public services, etc. are really saying that there should be no community.  I feel sorry for them and would not want to live in their world.   The ideal balance may never be found, and it should probably change with the times and needs.  But we need a mix of both Capitalism and Socialism.

2 visions of utopia

Imagine that technology has progressed to the point where all our basic needs can be taken care of at no cost.  Clean and renewable energy powers the machines that farm the land, clean the water, build our shelters, cut our lawns, and transport our people and goods.  Medicine has evolved to the point where major illnesses are obsolete.  No one has to work.

Now, would it be great if this technology was freely available to everyone in the whole world?  If everyone was taken care of and were free to pursue their passions?  There would be much less motivation to commit crimes and wage war.  Everyone would be safe and secure.

Or would it be better if only you owned this technology and could withhold it?  Then you could control people.  Make them do what you want or else they die (or steal).  

Which vision is more appealing to you?  

It takes courage

So I wanted to remodel my house.  I brought in a designer who took one look and said, "we'll knock out all the interior walls and open up all the space.  It'll be great, trust me."  So he drew up some plans and I had them evaluated by an architect.  The architect said, "you can't knock out these walls, they are load-bearing.  If you follow this plan, your whole house will collapse."  So I said to my friends, "This designer is an idiot.  He doesn't know what he is doing and should not be in this position.  Who is this guy anyway?"  But then Fox News said, "Hey, that's Paul Ryan.  At least he had the courage to draw up a plan.  All he deserves is credit and our admiration."