10 Tips for a Liberal Thanksgiving

My step-dad posted this silly attack on Libertarianism, and I figured one good caricature deserves another, so please enjoy my 10 Tips for a Liberal Thanksgiving.

1.  Pick up your FREE* turkey from your local Federal distribution center.  We decided that since so many people buy turkey on Thanksgiving, it would be better if we all pooled our resources and negotiated a really good deal with one producer.  All you have to do is make an appointment at the distribution center, fill out the attached 17 forms in triplicate, provide 2 forms of photo I.D., and wait 2-4 weeks for delivery of your FREE* turkey!

Of course, you’re not required to get one, but *your taxes already paid for it (and the delivery and distribution centers and their workers) so you probably should.  If you wanted ham, nobody’s stopping you from buying one of those in addition to what you already paid, or if you want a higher end turkey than we provide, you can probably afford to have paid twice anyway, so don’t complain.  Be thankful that you can afford luxury items, you greedy fat cat!

2.  Anyone who does the cooking during Thanksgiving must be paid $10 per hour, doubled for Holiday pay, and taxed at roughly 20%.  Families found to have neglected to pay the cook(s) or pay taxes will be subject to fines and jail time.

3.  Enjoy your meal, but please be aware that a Social Welfare Officer will be joining you for dinner!  He is there to guarantee that nobody takes in more than their daily recommended caloric requirements, as decided by a team of bureaucrats in Washington.  Trust us, it’s for your own good, as it will keep you healthier and keep your health care costs lower, which in turn will keep your taxes low!  Everybody wins!

4.  Once each family member has had his or her daily sustenance needs met, your Social Welfare Officer will collect the leftovers for redistribution to families that have not had their daily caloric requirements met.  This ensures that everyone gives and receives their fair share, and everyone will have something to be thankful for!

5.  All dinners must begin between 4:00-5:00 p.m.  This is to help ensure that ample time will be available after the meal for redistribution of leftovers to needy families.  Families found to be eating outside of the appointed dinner time may be subject to fines.

6.  Do not be alarmed that your Social Welfare Officer is armed.  He is part of a special class of citizens that are trustworthy, and would never misuse his weapon under any circumstances.  Also, it’s almost inevitable that some fat, wealthy families will refuse to share their leftovers with the truly needy, so a show of force may be required to ensure that everyone can have a great Thanksgiving.

7.  Please select all recipes from the federally provided list of acceptable options.  Remember, you’re not just cooking for your own family; you are cooking for all of the needy as well.  Families will be fined for any dishes that do not conform to the federal list, as those confiscated leftovers cannot safely be redistributed and must be replaced at taxpayer expense.

8.  You are free to say grace, and encouraged, as this is a fine American tradition and your right under the First Amendment.  However, please be aware that if you choose to bless the food, you must bless it according to each tradition represented in America, as the food may be distributed to members of various religious affiliations.  Attached you will find federally approved methods of blessing foods according to each religion to which your meal may later be redistributed.

9.  Be careful while you are eating not to exceed your caloric limits before desert.  It would be tragic if you were unable to consume one of the two government-approved options of Apple of Pumpkin pie!  Our favored corporate producer has worked long and hard to provide this sub-quality, subsidized delicacy at prices far more astounding than their flavor.

10.  Please be prepared to welcome a government-assigned guest to your table.  Each family will be required to sponsor one guest per five family members (minimum one) who would otherwise have nowhere to share a family meal.  Many are mentally unstable or criminally dangerous, so you will be glad that your Social Welfare Officer is armed.  Please treat your guests exactly as you would treat your own family.  Remember, we’re all in this together, and everyone should have something to be thankful for!

GDP: The Great Deceiver

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is commonly referenced in public discussion and policy decisions.  It could be argued that GDP is the most important statistic in the world of politics, both domestic and international.  Given how important this particular measurement has become to our political decision-making, it is alarming when we consider that it is a very loose approximation for economic output, not a precise measurement.

 GDP does not measure what was produced in a year, as it claims to.  Rather, it measures what people paid for in taxable transactions in a year.  Though related, these two values can diverge quite significantly, and growth or decay in one does not necessitate a similar move in the other.  Consider the following scenarios:

 A family has a small plot of land behind their home which they use to grow vegetables and fruits.  They eat all that they produce, and they never sell any of it.  One year, there is a drought and all of their fruits die.  They produced less, so production is down.  But they have to go out and buy their produce now, so GDP actually goes up!

A jewelry store charges $500 for a necklace.  Each one sold increases GDP by $500.  Then they have a sale, 30% off!  Now the exact same necklaces only raise GDP by $350 each.  GDP changes while actual production remains constant.

A man stays at home to cook food, educate his children, maintain the house and their belongings, and bargain hunt.  Then, he decides to enter the workforce to bring in more money.  To achieve this, the children go to school and a teacher is paid, but they the kids actually receive less education.  Repairmen and cleaners are hired, but the home and garden are kept in worse condition.  Restaurants and delivery boys receive payments, but the family receives less nutrition.  The man works and receives payment, but has less free time left over and a very similar income:expenditure ratio.  GDP expands tremendously while production improves only slightly.

A fishery improves net technology and manages to capture 99% of the fish stocks in its area.  GDP rises sharply (that year), but the productive capacity of  fishery was actually severely reduced.

A band of hooligans breaks all the store windows on a street.  The store owners all pay for replacements, so at the end of the day they have the same amount of stuff minus the cost of window repair.  Yet GDP has risen!

A large, thriving shadow market exists for a banned substance.  The government lifts the ban, and all of the shady operations move into formal economy.  GDP rises even if less of the substance is produced there.

 In conclusion, an increase in GDP could reflect an increase in production.  However, it could also reflect liquidation of productive resources, replacement of damaged capital or goods, formalization of shadow markets, inflation, price gouging, or a decrease in self-reliance.  Given how ambiguous this term is, it seems crazy to me how much policy is tied directly to it.

SCOTUS on Voting Rights: All Or Nothing

Many people are upset that the Supreme Court has overturned section four of the Voting Rights Act because they believe, with good cause (see dissenting opinion), that the nine states and the additional districts it targets will use their restored sovereignty to enact voting laws that will effectively discourage registration and turn-out for minority citizens.  The court is being attacked for opening the door for these States to enact laws that may be in violation of the 15th amendment without having to be screened for racial discrimination by the Department of Justice before they come into effect.  Now, the laws will have to challenged in court before being scrutinized (like in the other 41 states), as opposed to being scrutinized by default without anyone even challenging them.

The majority opinion does not claim that discrimination by race no longer exists (although it does cite how much progress there has been toward equality), or even that it doesn't expect any "back-sliding" toward Jim Crow.  Rather, it explains that the formula to determine which states are singled out for special DOJ scrutiny no longer captures all or exclusively the biggest offenders.  Some states which have relatively "clean" records in recent times are still facing extra scrutiny, whereas five states not singled out have even worse records of violations than eight of the nine states that are.

This implies either that the formula should be adjusted to include additional states who are worse offenders than those currently included, or it must be struck down for its arbitrary application to only a subset of the group of states that are attempting to circumvent the 15th amendment.  As the Supreme Court does not have the power to modify a law to expand coverage, its only option was to strike it down and expect that Congress will revise the law more accurately to reflect current conditions.  Given that the law was renewed in 2006 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House and signed by a Republican president, and given the public's near-universal support for equal voting rights, it should be easy for Congress to get this done (and it might even help out their horrendous approval ratings).

This court decision has provided a powerful impetus for Congress to pass new legislation to protect voting rights for all Americans, not just those in states who were the biggest offenders in 1965.  Furthermore, this is an excellent opportunity to add in provisions specifically tailored to address "second generation" barriers to voting that have effectively blocked minority representation despite near parity of access to the ballot achieved by the VRA.

From one perspective, this was a blow to the cause of equal representation.  From another perspective, by shattering the status quo, this could serve to draw national attention to ongoing racist abuses by states who managed to avoid being included in section four as written, as well as modern indirect methods of disenfranchisement.  Hopefully, that national attention will lead to a solution that is more extensive, inclusive, equally enforced, and currently relevant than the original VRA.

Does Money Buy Elections?

The question of whether and to what degree money can buy elections became a subject of great debate after the ruling in Citizens United basically lifted political campaign contribution limits and allowed them to be anonymous.  Naturally, many people were concerned that whichever candidate received the most money would have a huge advantage and win against the "true" will of the people.

The arguments in defense of unlimited spending say that free speech is protected, and point to instances where Republican candidates that had tremendous financial advantages lost to Democrats with half the money, or Democrats who had a similar monetary advantage and lost.  This does indeed show that there are definite limits to what money can buy in an election.

However, the framing of this argument is remarkably deceptive.  If we broaden the analysis to consider all of the parties that ran in elections, we could see that the two parties that each have exponentially more money than the other (third) parties win over 99% of all federal offices. 

When we look outside of the two-party frame, we see that money almost certainly buys elections.  Advertising won't change too many peoples' minds, but it will group everyone on the "left" around the Democratic candidate, and everyone on the "right" around the Republican candidate. 

If unlimited amounts of money can be donated anonymously, then a single wealthy entity can secretly donate huge sums to any two "opposing" sides of an election and basically guarantee that one of its candidates will win the office, thereby effectively purchasing 99% of all elections.  For extra guarantees, an entity could plant and fund multiple candidates in every relevant primary election, as well, to control the choices available at the end.


If this false dichotomy is established and maintained, the two parties can be "swung" this way or that on any issue, allowing the entity that controls both parties financially to manipulate the government over time to produce whatever laws and programs suit it.  Two-party rule, when both parties derive their power from the same monied interests, is really just single-party rule.

I'm voting for a third-party candidate.

Reverse Chivalry

While I was at grocery store the other day, wearing my daughter, on two separate occasions middle-aged women apparently felt an overwhelming desire to assist me with difficult things like... finding items I was already looking at, or unloading groceries from a cart onto the conveyor belt.  I felt compelled to express gratitude that I did not feel  -- what else could I do?

This was not a unique scenario; random women decided to start "assisting" me a little under two years ago.  At first, I thought "what a helpful and friendly bunch of women started shopping here all of a sudden."  However, over the months, I've noticed a pattern.  Whenever I take Nora to the grocery store with me, I apparently transform into a helpless, pitiable man (or child?), clearly out of his element and in need of a woman's guidance.  I know they meant well, but I can't help but feel a little bit insulted.  I wrote a haiku to express how I feel about this:

If the task's easy,
Your help is not generous,
But condescending.

Now I'm not sure whether I should avoid offering to carry heavy things for ladies (even though I offer for men, too).  Which kind of jerk would I rather risk being seen as -- the condescending patriarchist, or the lazy guy who makes a woman carry everything? 

Smoke, Mirrors, and Taxes

A short while ago, there was a debate in this country about tax fairness.  The Republican Party said people in general were paying too much in tax.  The Democrats said that the super rich weren't paying their "fair share." 

Warren Buffet, a man who was briefly the richest man in the world, basically won this argument for the Democrats by saying that he was actually paying half the tax rate that his secretary paid.  This is obviously unfair, and it was 100% true.  This was proof that the super-rich should be taxed at a higher rate -- even the super rich agree!

However, the supposed solution did not match the problem.  What the Democrats demanded (and won) was an increase in the highest marginal rate of income tax.  That's money you get from working for somebody.

What nobody publicized was that the reason Mr. Buffet paid half his secretary's rate is that she was already at the top bracket of the income tax, close to 35%, whereas Mr. Buffet's income came primarily in the form of capital gains, i.e. returns on investments, which were taxed at a maximum of 15%.  He paid slightly more than that, 17.4%, because a small fraction of his money comes from salary/wages, and is therefore taxed at the much higher rates that most highly paid professionals are used to.

What this means is that the tax plan that actually passed -- the one that raised the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% and raised payroll taxes by 2% across the board (even on the poorest people who make so little that they pay no income tax!) while raising the highest rate for capital gains from 15% to 20% will have a perverse outcome:

It will raise Buffet's secretary's tax rate by 6% (as she's in the top bracket) but only raise his effective tax rate only a little over 5%.  WTF!

If Democratic representatives were serious about targeting the tax advantages of the super wealthy, they would actually leave the Income Tax alone (or even lower it) and raise the capital gains tax (by a lot more than 5%).  Not surprisingly, a large portion of congressmen (and an even larger percentage of their biggest donors) actually receive most of their own personal income through capital gains, so it's no wonder they're not interested in raising it to match the income tax. 

Lucky for them, people are too off-put by math and tax law to figure out that their leaders, from both parties, decided to balance the books on the backs of the poor and the middle class, through the payroll tax (our most regressive), rather than making capital gains taxes significantly more progressive (and/or cutting spending).

Exorcise Daily

Today, I declared war against the demon that I have allowed to dominate my thinking and my time for the last 14 years (roughly the latest 60% of my entire life).  When I say "demon," of course I am not referring to a supernatural, fire-breathing monster.  I am talking about a self-destructive set of behaviors and mental habits that I have developed and nurtured in myself which negatively impact my ability to achieve many of the things that I most desire. "Demon" just provides a nice metaphor to represent that concept.

I will not name the form this demon has taken for me, because it doesn't really matter how, specifically, I have let my mind defeat itself.  What I want, as I write this, is to empower you, the reader, to begin your own fight for your own mind.  Your demon, if you have one, probably wears a different title than mine does.  You know its name.  Perhaps it is "alcoholism."  Perhaps it is "substance abuse."  Perhaps it is "gambling addiction."  Perhaps it is "eating disorder."  Perhaps it is, like mine, something much less obvious and much less commonly acknowledged.  The point is that you and you alone know the full extent of the havoc that it is wreaking in your life.  But you do know it.

I am writing this because of what a struggle it has been for me to begin my fight.  You see, I always assumed that somebody else would see the evil and command me to combat it, or even fight it for me.  You know, an intervention.  I have now been waiting for most of my life.  If anybody saw it, they must have kept their mouths shut, or I convinced them (and myself?) that they were wrong.  It would be insane for me to think another day, another year, another decade will make any difference.  I've been insane for 14 years now.  Today I begin my fight for sanity. 

There is another reason this was difficult.  My demon has always been very comforting.  He has helped me to avoid pain, disappointment, boredom, shame.  He has promised to dull those feelings from now until death, and he has always made good on that promise.  What he has not and can never promise is to reverse them; he can never bring me joy, exultation, exhilaration, pride, and he distracts me mightily from the things that can.  In the end, he becomes a source of the very emotions he was summoned to deaden.  This is what makes him a demon and not a healthy coping mechanism.  This is why I must destroy him to reclaim my self.

I waited 14 years for somebody to give me the order.  I hope you haven't been waiting as long, but here's your order: as a man who has suffered no wounds greater than those he has inflicted upon himself, I implore you to look honestly within yourself and name your own demons.  What, inside of you, is holding you back?  Name it, banish it, and become the person you want to become.