On Thursday the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 459. The bill would give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The measure would not go into effect until states with a majority (270) of the 538 national electoral votes approve similar legislation. Thus far seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted the procedure, known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The measure now goes to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated whether he will sign it. Previous Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed the bill.
Brown's signature and California's adherence to the Compact would definitely be a step in the right direction, the direction of democracy. We elect every other office by who gets the most votes; this would make the democratic principle universal for all our elected officials. The idea was first approved in Maryland in 2007. Since then New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, D.C. and Vermont have joined. California's big bloc of 55 electoral votes would get the Compact nearly half way to enactment, as the total of ratified states plus the national capitol would come to 132.
Those who object to electing the president by popular rather than electoral vote usually say it would eliminate the importance of smaller states in presidential elections. That's not true, though. The present electoral college system neglects both small and large states, and candidates concentrate almost all their time and resources on 12-15 swing states. Some like Florida are big states but others like Nevada have small populations. No one pays any attention to big California, reliably Democratic, nor big Texas, reliably Republican. Likewise, no one worries about small Democratic Connecticut or small Republican Wyoming.
It is better by far for the candidates to have to concern themselves with people and their concerns, wherever they live, rather than the needs of those who happen to live in just a few strategic states. This bill is a welcome step along that path. To see my earlier comments on why popular vote is preferable to the Electoral College, see my 2007 blog "The Electoral College: Democracy Denied."
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Revive the Space Program
As I write, space shuttle Atlantis is presently docked at the International Space Station to deliver four tons of equipment. This is the last shuttle mission before the fleet is retired. The American manned space program will now go on hiatus. After fifty years in space and thirty years with the shuttle, any U.S. astronauts going up will now have to hitch a ride with the Russians. As a lifelong space enthusiast I have to admit I'm terribly disappointed with this shortsighted state of affairs.
It seems all part of a nation abandoning its dreams and pulling in on itself. The spirit of adventure and exploration that gave rise to the country seems to have evaporated. We appear to be under the sway of decision makers more concerned about saving a nickel than making a dollar. As a child, I watched the first astronauts go up. First Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, then John Glenn fired our imaginations and national pride by rocketing into the heavens on a column of flame. Before the end of the 1960s, strikingly courageous trailblazers backed by American resolve, organizational acumen and scientific prowess had fulfilled President Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon. Missions to Mars were planned for the 1980s. And then things started getting scaled back.
The entire space shuttle program has cost $209 billion. That's $7 billion a year, $7 billion that is equivalent to less than one month's expenses in Afghanistan. Viewed from a practical standpoint, money invested in the space program has yielded a huge return for the U.S. economy. That investment has been responsible for immense advances in computers, electronics, weather prediction, the GPS system, communications, cryogenics, physics, aeronautics, and the developments of myriad substances able to withstand extremes of temperature and stress. Take a look at some spinoffs here. There are thousands of them.
In the 1960s the space program was 4.4% of the U.S. budget. In 1972 that was cut back to 1.6%. Now it is less than 0.5%. While the forward-looking nations of the world that are emerging as the new leaders are investing in space, technology and modern infrastructure, many who seem to hold sway in America tell us we cannot afford to dream and explore, to embrace cutting edge energy production or even to modernize our aging and inadequate transportation system. That is poppycock. We will spend three times the entire NASA budget this year paying absentee "farmers" not to grow crops.
I would instead contend that the nation that loses its spirit of adventure, scales back its vision and turns its back on the future by failing to keep up with the innovation of its international competitors is far along the path toward obsolescence and decline. I for one have heard quite enough from those who continue to tell us what we can't afford and can't do. We Americans need galvanizing dreams, the call of the frontier, and a national challenge to call forth our best efforts. The establishment of a moon base or a Mars program would fit the bill nicely. We have been waiting and drifting long enough. Let's go.
It seems all part of a nation abandoning its dreams and pulling in on itself. The spirit of adventure and exploration that gave rise to the country seems to have evaporated. We appear to be under the sway of decision makers more concerned about saving a nickel than making a dollar. As a child, I watched the first astronauts go up. First Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, then John Glenn fired our imaginations and national pride by rocketing into the heavens on a column of flame. Before the end of the 1960s, strikingly courageous trailblazers backed by American resolve, organizational acumen and scientific prowess had fulfilled President Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon. Missions to Mars were planned for the 1980s. And then things started getting scaled back.
The entire space shuttle program has cost $209 billion. That's $7 billion a year, $7 billion that is equivalent to less than one month's expenses in Afghanistan. Viewed from a practical standpoint, money invested in the space program has yielded a huge return for the U.S. economy. That investment has been responsible for immense advances in computers, electronics, weather prediction, the GPS system, communications, cryogenics, physics, aeronautics, and the developments of myriad substances able to withstand extremes of temperature and stress. Take a look at some spinoffs here. There are thousands of them.
In the 1960s the space program was 4.4% of the U.S. budget. In 1972 that was cut back to 1.6%. Now it is less than 0.5%. While the forward-looking nations of the world that are emerging as the new leaders are investing in space, technology and modern infrastructure, many who seem to hold sway in America tell us we cannot afford to dream and explore, to embrace cutting edge energy production or even to modernize our aging and inadequate transportation system. That is poppycock. We will spend three times the entire NASA budget this year paying absentee "farmers" not to grow crops.
I would instead contend that the nation that loses its spirit of adventure, scales back its vision and turns its back on the future by failing to keep up with the innovation of its international competitors is far along the path toward obsolescence and decline. I for one have heard quite enough from those who continue to tell us what we can't afford and can't do. We Americans need galvanizing dreams, the call of the frontier, and a national challenge to call forth our best efforts. The establishment of a moon base or a Mars program would fit the bill nicely. We have been waiting and drifting long enough. Let's go.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Brooks Book Hooks This Reader
I've just read a fascinating and important book, The Social Animal by David Brooks. In it Brooks brings you up to date on recent findings in studies of the brain that are truly revolutionizing our conception of how people think, feel and interact. He does this through following the lives of two fictionalized but prototypical characters, Harold and Erica. I highly recommend this book.
The basic idea is that most of our brain activity takes place in the subconscious, including most of what we consider thinking, and that it's all infused with feelings and motives we're often not even aware of. We reference and prioritize virtually everything through emotional constructs, for instance. Our conscious thoughts are truly the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in our heads. Let me give you some examples.
From the chapter on culture, illustrating the power of identification: Researchers gave Yale students a biography of a mathematician named Nathan Jackson. In half the cases they listed Jackson's birthday as the same date as the student reading the bio. The students were then given some math problems to do. The ones with the matching birthdays worked on the problems 65% longer than those without.
Also from culture, on reasons for institutional effectiveness: "The United States is a collective society that thinks it is an individualistic one. If you ask Americans to describe their values, they will give you the most individualistic answers of any nation on the planet. Yet if you actually watch how Americans behave, you see they trust one another instinctively and form groups with alacrity."
From the chapter on society: "A cultural revolution had decimated old habits and traditional family structures. An economic revolution had replaced downtowns with big isolated malls with chain stores. The information revolution had replaced community organizations that held weekly face-to-face meetings with specialized online social networking where like found like....The webs of relationship that habituate self-restraint, respect for others, and social sympathy lost their power."
On social mobility: The biggest change here is not globalization but "cognitive load," the modern need to process so much more and different types of information than before. Brooks writes, "In the 1970s it barely made economic sense to go to college, some argued. But starting in the early 1980s the education premium started to grow and hasn't stopped." The median family income of someone with a graduate degree is $93,000 and a child born into that family has a 50% chance of graduation from college. The median person with a high school degree is in a family making $42,000 and a child born into the family has a 10% chance of college graduation. For high school dropouts the figures are $28,000 and 6%.
And you've got to see the "marshmallow test" results on page 123-124 that predicts future success much better than any IQ test! Brooks is known as a prominent moderately conservative social and political commentator, but does not let ideology control where the research leads. In fact it often leads away from his convictions. If you get a chance to read The Social Animal settle in for a treat.
The basic idea is that most of our brain activity takes place in the subconscious, including most of what we consider thinking, and that it's all infused with feelings and motives we're often not even aware of. We reference and prioritize virtually everything through emotional constructs, for instance. Our conscious thoughts are truly the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in our heads. Let me give you some examples.
From the chapter on culture, illustrating the power of identification: Researchers gave Yale students a biography of a mathematician named Nathan Jackson. In half the cases they listed Jackson's birthday as the same date as the student reading the bio. The students were then given some math problems to do. The ones with the matching birthdays worked on the problems 65% longer than those without.
Also from culture, on reasons for institutional effectiveness: "The United States is a collective society that thinks it is an individualistic one. If you ask Americans to describe their values, they will give you the most individualistic answers of any nation on the planet. Yet if you actually watch how Americans behave, you see they trust one another instinctively and form groups with alacrity."
From the chapter on society: "A cultural revolution had decimated old habits and traditional family structures. An economic revolution had replaced downtowns with big isolated malls with chain stores. The information revolution had replaced community organizations that held weekly face-to-face meetings with specialized online social networking where like found like....The webs of relationship that habituate self-restraint, respect for others, and social sympathy lost their power."
On social mobility: The biggest change here is not globalization but "cognitive load," the modern need to process so much more and different types of information than before. Brooks writes, "In the 1970s it barely made economic sense to go to college, some argued. But starting in the early 1980s the education premium started to grow and hasn't stopped." The median family income of someone with a graduate degree is $93,000 and a child born into that family has a 50% chance of graduation from college. The median person with a high school degree is in a family making $42,000 and a child born into the family has a 10% chance of college graduation. For high school dropouts the figures are $28,000 and 6%.
And you've got to see the "marshmallow test" results on page 123-124 that predicts future success much better than any IQ test! Brooks is known as a prominent moderately conservative social and political commentator, but does not let ideology control where the research leads. In fact it often leads away from his convictions. If you get a chance to read The Social Animal settle in for a treat.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
An Illness Gets Me Thinking
I've had something happen this week that once again underscored for me the importance of making sure that everyone has access to medical care. This past Monday around noon I came down with a case of the sniffles. It didn't seem too serious at first, but over the course of the afternoon the runny nose got worse.
I have had allergies before, though not for some years, and this seemed like such an episode. It is late spring/early summer and I'd just been noticing some new flowers, particularly the verbenas, in bloom around the house. The drip from the nose was very thin and watery and became constant, except when being interrupted by sneezing. Then my left eyelid got swollen and puffy and began to water incessantly too. I finally took some antihistamine and went to bed.
I suffered all day Tuesday, using one tissue after another all day. I kept taking antihistamines but my condition persisted. It seemed peculiar that only the left nostril and eye were affected. The right side side, to my relief, was still clear so I could breathe out of one side of my nose and see out of at least one eye.
The body's mechanisms and defenses are remarkable. Like Tuesday morning, when I woke up Wednesday at first the symptoms were much improved. Before long, though, they were back at full strength. It's as though the body makes a maximum effort to keep the air passages open so it can try to renew itself in sleep, and then, exhausted, is once again overwhelmed. By mid morning I was miserable. I resolved to go to the doctor, hoping for perhaps a stronger, prescription antihistamine that could overcome my body's allergic reaction to whatever pollens were bedeviling it.
Instead, I was surprised when he looked into my left ear and exclaimed, "My gosh, it's sure red in there!" The same was true when he peered up my left nostril. It seemed I didn't have just an allergy going on. A full-blown infection of the ear, nose and sinus was underway. He prescribed a five-day antibiotic treatment of Azithromycin (often called the Z-pack) and a nasal spray to dry things up. With these in hand, I was already considerably better by bedtime Wednesday and felt definitely on the mend by Thursday. Ah, the wonders of modern medicine!
Fortunately, I'm someone with good employer-provided medical coverage. It doesn't cost me much to see the doctor or get prescriptions. Yet I still waited two days, both because I incorrectly self-diagnosed what was wrong and because I therefore didn't want to waste even an insurance company's money on something that probably couldn't be remedied except by time.
What would I have done if I'd had no insurance at all? Well, I can afford to pay, so I might have waited another day trying to save the $90 doctor visit and $150 prescription cost. What if I were really hurting for money, like most of the community college students I teach? Well then, I can imagine waiting a long time, hoping it would go away of its own accord. $240 is a couple of weeks pay for some of them, or their share of a month's rent. They would just suffer and get worse for another several days or a week. Maybe an infection like mine left untreated for 10 days could cost someone an eye. And if it were something more dangerous, they might well wait until it was too late and even die. It happens. That's why Harvard Medical School estimated 45,000 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance.
That's also why it's such a moral imperative to make sure everyone does have some form of coverage. It needs to be treated as a human right. As Garrison Keillor has written, "if lower taxes are your priority over human life, then we know what sort of person you are. The response to a cry for help says a lot about us as human beings."
I have had allergies before, though not for some years, and this seemed like such an episode. It is late spring/early summer and I'd just been noticing some new flowers, particularly the verbenas, in bloom around the house. The drip from the nose was very thin and watery and became constant, except when being interrupted by sneezing. Then my left eyelid got swollen and puffy and began to water incessantly too. I finally took some antihistamine and went to bed.
I suffered all day Tuesday, using one tissue after another all day. I kept taking antihistamines but my condition persisted. It seemed peculiar that only the left nostril and eye were affected. The right side side, to my relief, was still clear so I could breathe out of one side of my nose and see out of at least one eye.
The body's mechanisms and defenses are remarkable. Like Tuesday morning, when I woke up Wednesday at first the symptoms were much improved. Before long, though, they were back at full strength. It's as though the body makes a maximum effort to keep the air passages open so it can try to renew itself in sleep, and then, exhausted, is once again overwhelmed. By mid morning I was miserable. I resolved to go to the doctor, hoping for perhaps a stronger, prescription antihistamine that could overcome my body's allergic reaction to whatever pollens were bedeviling it.
Instead, I was surprised when he looked into my left ear and exclaimed, "My gosh, it's sure red in there!" The same was true when he peered up my left nostril. It seemed I didn't have just an allergy going on. A full-blown infection of the ear, nose and sinus was underway. He prescribed a five-day antibiotic treatment of Azithromycin (often called the Z-pack) and a nasal spray to dry things up. With these in hand, I was already considerably better by bedtime Wednesday and felt definitely on the mend by Thursday. Ah, the wonders of modern medicine!
Fortunately, I'm someone with good employer-provided medical coverage. It doesn't cost me much to see the doctor or get prescriptions. Yet I still waited two days, both because I incorrectly self-diagnosed what was wrong and because I therefore didn't want to waste even an insurance company's money on something that probably couldn't be remedied except by time.
What would I have done if I'd had no insurance at all? Well, I can afford to pay, so I might have waited another day trying to save the $90 doctor visit and $150 prescription cost. What if I were really hurting for money, like most of the community college students I teach? Well then, I can imagine waiting a long time, hoping it would go away of its own accord. $240 is a couple of weeks pay for some of them, or their share of a month's rent. They would just suffer and get worse for another several days or a week. Maybe an infection like mine left untreated for 10 days could cost someone an eye. And if it were something more dangerous, they might well wait until it was too late and even die. It happens. That's why Harvard Medical School estimated 45,000 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance.
That's also why it's such a moral imperative to make sure everyone does have some form of coverage. It needs to be treated as a human right. As Garrison Keillor has written, "if lower taxes are your priority over human life, then we know what sort of person you are. The response to a cry for help says a lot about us as human beings."
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Back From Kansas City
I'm back from scoring AP European History exams in Kansas City. I avoided any tornadoes in the city on the wide Missouri River but couldn't completely avoid the heat. The daily highs ranged from 93 to 97, accompanied by the kind of high humidity we don't get in Visalia. Outside of the work-related, I set up a group trip of 14 of us to take in a baseball game at the very attractive Kauffman Stadium, home of the Kansas City Royals. The home town team fell to the visiting Minnesota Twins 8-2.
I was also able to partake in some famous KC barbecue at Jack Stack's. I had the sampler platter including beef, chicken, a baby back rib and even kielbasa. It was excellent. I came back with some BBQ sauce for home, including from a couple of restaurants I didn't get to, Arthur Bryant's and Gates.
Then there was an outing to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. It has to be seen to be believed--spectacular. Monet's "Water Lilies" were there on tour. It also has Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman, Medieval, Enlightenment Era, American, African, Asian and modern. Architecturally, the building looks like it might have been put up by an 1890s robber baron, with marble columns in the monumental neoclassical style--very impressive. I didn't even get to the American and Asian collections but if I ever return to KC I'll be back for the rest of it.
On the topic of the work-related, I'll be incorporating some of the material from the AP test in my Western Civilization classes. There were some fascinating documents on England's Queen Elizabeth I and the gender-related challenges she faced when she ascended the throne, including how she handled the potentially fatal (for her) situation. I also learned a lot about the events leading up to the English Civil War. That is the interlude that ended with Charles I losing his head and determining that Parliament would reign supreme in Britain rather than following the course of absolute monarchy that was gaining the upper hand in France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The developments of Britain and the Netherlands along constitutional rather than absolutist lines was of immense significance in setting the stage for their rise to prominence and bequeathing important elements of their systems to the subsequent democracies, including that of the United States.
I was also able to partake in some famous KC barbecue at Jack Stack's. I had the sampler platter including beef, chicken, a baby back rib and even kielbasa. It was excellent. I came back with some BBQ sauce for home, including from a couple of restaurants I didn't get to, Arthur Bryant's and Gates.
Then there was an outing to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. It has to be seen to be believed--spectacular. Monet's "Water Lilies" were there on tour. It also has Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman, Medieval, Enlightenment Era, American, African, Asian and modern. Architecturally, the building looks like it might have been put up by an 1890s robber baron, with marble columns in the monumental neoclassical style--very impressive. I didn't even get to the American and Asian collections but if I ever return to KC I'll be back for the rest of it.
On the topic of the work-related, I'll be incorporating some of the material from the AP test in my Western Civilization classes. There were some fascinating documents on England's Queen Elizabeth I and the gender-related challenges she faced when she ascended the throne, including how she handled the potentially fatal (for her) situation. I also learned a lot about the events leading up to the English Civil War. That is the interlude that ended with Charles I losing his head and determining that Parliament would reign supreme in Britain rather than following the course of absolute monarchy that was gaining the upper hand in France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Prussia. The developments of Britain and the Netherlands along constitutional rather than absolutist lines was of immense significance in setting the stage for their rise to prominence and bequeathing important elements of their systems to the subsequent democracies, including that of the United States.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Real Meaning of the Gingrich Flap
There is no doubt the roll out for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign is one of the quickest self-immolations in U.S. political history. But what has received little comment is the extent to which the entire episode shows just how strong Barack Obama may be in 2012 and how poorly Republicans are positioning themselves to run against him.
Former Speaker Gingrich led the House from 1995 to 1999 during the Clinton era. He officially announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency on May 11. Within four days his campaign was a shambles, reeling from self-inflicted verbal wounds and assailed by his fellow Republicans. Though Gingrich's prospects were already touch and go due to his multiple marriages, ethics lapses and policy flip flops (for instance, he was for the health care mandate before he was against it and supported intervention in Libya until Obama did it, after which he opposed it) his real problems began when he went on NBC's "Meet the Press" with David Gregory on May 15, a scant four days after jumping into the race. You can see the "Meet the Press" interview or read the transcript here.
Speaking of the budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that defunds much of Medicare and turns it into a voucher program, Gingrich criticized it as "right wing social engineering." He was immediately excoriated by Republican media and candidates for not supporting party orthodoxy. Gingrich took so much heat from them that within days he was completely disavowing his statement, claiming a conspiracy on the part of Gregory, playing up his "great friendship" with Ryan and pledging his absolute fealty to the party line on taking Medicare apart.
The irony, of course, is that Gingrich was right in the first place. Medicare is probably the most popular federal program ever instituted. To put a cap on it and start pricing it out of the means of senior citizens would not only be unconscionable social policy, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy or early deaths of untold numbers of people, it would also make certain an overwhelming GOP defeat at the polls in 2012. If the eventual GOP nominee runs on a platform of gutting Medicare you can expect to see him or her lose by an even greater margin than John McCain did in 2008. One only has to think back to the Tea Party types who flooded town hall meetings in 2009, shouting for their congressperson not to vote for "socialized medicine" but also to "keep your hands off my Medicare."
The brouhaha indicates the extent to which the GOP is overreaching and out of touch with the public. Their only chance with the moderate center of the electorate is to disavow the Ryan budget's slashing of Medicare. Yet all but four Republican House members voted for it. They are already going to have targets on their backs for that. Any presidential nominee who wants to win is going to have to run away from that position. But as the Gingrich flap demonstrates, their base may not permit that to happen. If not, expect easy sailing for Obama's re-election and a very good chance for the Democrats to recapture the House.
Former Speaker Gingrich led the House from 1995 to 1999 during the Clinton era. He officially announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency on May 11. Within four days his campaign was a shambles, reeling from self-inflicted verbal wounds and assailed by his fellow Republicans. Though Gingrich's prospects were already touch and go due to his multiple marriages, ethics lapses and policy flip flops (for instance, he was for the health care mandate before he was against it and supported intervention in Libya until Obama did it, after which he opposed it) his real problems began when he went on NBC's "Meet the Press" with David Gregory on May 15, a scant four days after jumping into the race. You can see the "Meet the Press" interview or read the transcript here.
Speaking of the budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that defunds much of Medicare and turns it into a voucher program, Gingrich criticized it as "right wing social engineering." He was immediately excoriated by Republican media and candidates for not supporting party orthodoxy. Gingrich took so much heat from them that within days he was completely disavowing his statement, claiming a conspiracy on the part of Gregory, playing up his "great friendship" with Ryan and pledging his absolute fealty to the party line on taking Medicare apart.
The irony, of course, is that Gingrich was right in the first place. Medicare is probably the most popular federal program ever instituted. To put a cap on it and start pricing it out of the means of senior citizens would not only be unconscionable social policy, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy or early deaths of untold numbers of people, it would also make certain an overwhelming GOP defeat at the polls in 2012. If the eventual GOP nominee runs on a platform of gutting Medicare you can expect to see him or her lose by an even greater margin than John McCain did in 2008. One only has to think back to the Tea Party types who flooded town hall meetings in 2009, shouting for their congressperson not to vote for "socialized medicine" but also to "keep your hands off my Medicare."
The brouhaha indicates the extent to which the GOP is overreaching and out of touch with the public. Their only chance with the moderate center of the electorate is to disavow the Ryan budget's slashing of Medicare. Yet all but four Republican House members voted for it. They are already going to have targets on their backs for that. Any presidential nominee who wants to win is going to have to run away from that position. But as the Gingrich flap demonstrates, their base may not permit that to happen. If not, expect easy sailing for Obama's re-election and a very good chance for the Democrats to recapture the House.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Our Taxes Are Low
There is no shortage of opinion, spin, ideology and outright propaganda in discourse over the issues of our day. And then there is fact. McClatchy reporter Kevin G. Hall did a little research lately and turned up an interesting set of such facts on the subject of federal taxes. To the contrary of what most conservatives believe and say, federal taxes are at the lowest percentage of national income since at least 1950. Go to the article here.
The historical average since World War II is that 18% of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the national economy, has gone to federal taxes. When times were prosperous, in the year 2000 after the longest expansion in U.S. history, that percentage grew to about 21%. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that fell to 15%. And then last year, 2010, it fell lower yet, to 14.4%.
The bottom line is that we are not overtaxed, but undertaxed, not only by world standards but even by our own historical standards. If getting a handle on the deficit is a concern, and it should be for the long term, though in the short term reviving jobs is a far more pressing matter, then there is no way to get there without increasing taxes. The simple math is that revenues are running 4% of GNP below historic norms and spending is running at about 6% of GNP ahead of the norm.
To balance the budget, if anyone is truly serious about it, would require increasing taxes about $600 billion a year and reducing spending by about $900 billion a year. To get an idea of what this would require, immediately withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan would save less than $200 billion. Now, a fair amount of any deficit will take care of itself if the economy improves significantly, and that should be the first order of business. But part of any realistic solution must also include restoring revenues to their historic averages, and that will require a tax increase, particularly on those in the top income levels. As Hall points out, their effective tax rates are the lowest they've been since before World War II.
So when you hear politicians say they have a plan to balance the federal budget without raising taxes, be assured they are spouting ideological rhetoric, not talking any kind of mathematical sense.
The historical average since World War II is that 18% of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the national economy, has gone to federal taxes. When times were prosperous, in the year 2000 after the longest expansion in U.S. history, that percentage grew to about 21%. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that fell to 15%. And then last year, 2010, it fell lower yet, to 14.4%.
The bottom line is that we are not overtaxed, but undertaxed, not only by world standards but even by our own historical standards. If getting a handle on the deficit is a concern, and it should be for the long term, though in the short term reviving jobs is a far more pressing matter, then there is no way to get there without increasing taxes. The simple math is that revenues are running 4% of GNP below historic norms and spending is running at about 6% of GNP ahead of the norm.
To balance the budget, if anyone is truly serious about it, would require increasing taxes about $600 billion a year and reducing spending by about $900 billion a year. To get an idea of what this would require, immediately withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan would save less than $200 billion. Now, a fair amount of any deficit will take care of itself if the economy improves significantly, and that should be the first order of business. But part of any realistic solution must also include restoring revenues to their historic averages, and that will require a tax increase, particularly on those in the top income levels. As Hall points out, their effective tax rates are the lowest they've been since before World War II.
So when you hear politicians say they have a plan to balance the federal budget without raising taxes, be assured they are spouting ideological rhetoric, not talking any kind of mathematical sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)