LJWorld.com

I wrote once before about this but I think it worth mentioning again. Because of my sorted past I receive daily casualty reports from our various wars. In the last week or so casualty rates have gone up significantly.

Anybody see a daily casualty count on the major news stations. As I recall during Mr. Bush’s tenure the losses were considered so newsworthy that we were treated to a daily score card on most of the networks. We have not seen such lately. Have you?

Have we become so inured to the losses of our sons and daughters that they are no longer worth mentioning except in passing?

The Senate finally passed legislation last Friday that would reverse the 21% cut in Medicare (seniors) and TRICARE (Veterans and serving military families) payments that took effect on June 1. Leadership form both parties agree the cuts needs to be reversed. House leaders, however, are saying that they will not fix the problem unless the Senate passes House-approved jobs measures.

So Mrs. Pelosi is holding medical care for seniors and soldiers hostage. Why must these citizens suffer because the Republicans are demanding we pay for any additional extension of unemployment (we are already paying for a year)? The Senate found funding to pay for the Medicare fix. Why doesn’t Mrs. Pelosi find the funding for the jobs measures?

Why are we doing this? Why have we not heard about it from the media (FOX, CNN, all the rest)? Are we playing politics with our soldiers and seniors?

A bit of “georgism” follows. When I spent some time back in Washington, I was privileged to have a small glimpse of people with real political power. One dilemma I noted they always had to face was just how to “win” the particular initiative they were pursuing. Anything one tries to do with “government” will be opposed by somebody (frequently with considerable power). So do you accept “half a loaf” in order to make progress or do you hold out for the whole thing. This notion is important in that most things that “government” tries to do involve impacts on people. Frequently the real issue is who gets hurt. All too frequently the answer to the compromise is to “hurt” a relative “innocent” in order to accomplish a “good” for those who are to be favored.

Now taking the “georgism” a bit further could that be the challenge behind at least some portion of the “tea bagger” movement. Many of you have noted that they are older, from the middle and upper middle and seemingly comfortable. Could they perceive they are the ones elected to take the pain in the short term? If one thinks about this for a few minutes, one might consider that these are the very people who are looking toward living on a fixed income and who have probably spent a lifetime accumulating some wealth to fall back upon in retirement. Printing a lot of money to fund immediate social initiatives as this administration has done will inevitably cause inflation making that wealth less valuable. If we disconnect the inflation protection of their pensions (as has been suggested as a way to pay for new social initiatives) they will be impacted even more. At their age it will be hard to recover.

So maybe we have taken another short cut to a presumed noble social objective and elected to punish the relative innocent rather than fight the big battle to actually ask the rich to contribute more? Do any of you think that Mr. Turner cares about Social Security or Medicare? Have many of you more progressive advocates joined the free market crowd in order to affect what could be considered a noble redistribution of wealth while “hurting” the middle and upper middle? Why are we simplistically calling these people “racist” when many appear to be motivated by personal economics?

Maybe the answer we should be seeking is to co-op any legitimate economic concern reflected in the “tea bag movement” and use it to insure a Democratic win at the polls next fall? We can pay for a lot of the redistribution suggested by the Progressives by simply asking the really wealthy to pay their share without “destroying” the middle and upper middle. In fact, is it truly redistribution if the rich are protected and the middle and upper middle are collapsed into the poor? Politics can be “interesting” particularly where it intersects with economics. If the “tea baggers” are worried about their own future, ignoring them will be at the peril of the Democratic Party.

We have been enjoying the dialogue in this space over wealth, taxes, entitlements and the like. Lots of strong heartfelt opinions- almost diametrically opposed.

We have the free market advocates who wrap around themselves the riches of our country as a prime exhibit of the success of that approach. In opposition we have those abhorring the very skewed distribution of wealth that has resulted. . The former abhors government intervention in the marketplace to “fix” it and the latter demands it as the only way to restore some sense of equity within the system.

Is there no middle ground? There is truth in the notion that the individual efforts of those trying to improve themselves has produced more broadly shared wealth per capita then in most countries throughout history. There is also truth that in recent years in particular that wealth has not found its way to the average citizen and has been aggregated at the top.

How do you fix that assuming you want to “fix” it? Will it fix itself? No! Greed being a perennial motive for human accomplishment those that have it rarely will share with those who do not. Is the government the way to “fix” it? Perhaps? However, the government can and has had duplicitous motives. NAFTA certainly allowed us as a nation to better compete. It also has caused the loss of many, many well paying domestic jobs. Good? Bad? Might depend on whose ox has been gored. A third way we tried for a while was employee representation such as unions. Bargaining power did certainly advance the cause of the workers.

From the standpoint of some the current administration is trying to use “government” to redistribute the economic pie. The discretionary portion of the budget has been increased by 25%. New entitlements for the lower socio-economic have been created. We are running a massive deficit and printing money to pay for it. We are looking at massive deficits for years to come. Taxes have not been increased at the federal level although committees have been established to make suggestions on how to tame the deficit. The outlook is bleak. Now what?

The LJW is all for the city revitalizing the old Farmland property on the east side of town. The argument appears to be future growth. The details are at best vague- as they seem to be for all our economic development activities. Just who will benefit from these efforts and who will pay?

Now, I would suspect that the latter is obvious. Current and future taxpayers will pay – for a long time. The money has to come from somewhere and last I looked there is no printing press in the city building basement. Yes, there will be some federal money, but given our federal over-commitment can we be sure it will be there?

Who benefits? I am having trouble with answering that question. First, I am not sure that “growth” for growths sake is such a good idea. Lacking detail as to the type of growth to be sought, I can only wonder. If we are to bring in more jobs such as the predominant type in our eastern business park and in our recent history, I suspect most of the new hires will not even be able to afford to live here. If we extend tax rebates to the owners of whatever we obtain it would seem to lead to a net loss. Why would we want to do this?

If we are going to be highly selective as to the growth to be obtained - where the new jobs will be well paid and perhaps actually contribute to our tax base - then maybe this could benefit our community. However, it would seem that to obtain such growth we would have to offer something unique. Competition for high paying jobs such as in biotechnology is keen and many other communities have a university and in some cases an existing biotechnology business base. What do we have to offer to trump their offers?

What I am afraid of is that this is another misrepresentation where our lawgivers are more interested in lining the pockets of some of our local business interests (developers come to mind). After we acquire various facilities and pay developers to upgrade and or repair them we will be unable to attract the kind of business that will make for a positive return Our law givers will then lose interest and like past city investments we will be left holding a less then attractive “bag”. Worse, with the acquisition of the farmland property we run the risk of open-ended costs to ameliorate environmental deficiencies. There is no guarantee our exposure is limited.

What is driving this sudden spurt in economic development? Do we have a plan? Has anyone seen that plan? You would think that responsible civic leaders would know where they are going and how they plan to get there. Is anyone clear as to the total costs to do whatever we are going to do? What are the steps? What are we expecting from KU? Is the state a party? Where will the investment come from if not the taxpayers? It would seem to me a philosophy of “if you build it they will come” is a very poor approach to nurturing the future of our city.

Does anybody know where we are going? Could our lawgivers, some of whom have ties to the development community, be working their own futures at our expense? Maybe, I am just out of touch! What do you think?

This morning, a letter to the editor suggested that there might be other options to improving the downtown library such as creating satellite facilities. Some people thought that might just be a good idea. Someone identified such a solution as a potential for the “haves” to further exploit the “have nots”. The definition seems to be geographic – west of the campus is the domain of the “haves” with the rest of the city inhabited by “have nots”.

I started to think about that and wondered if it is just that simple. I concluded it is not. We all, at least most of us, know that there is a significant amount of income transfers in our taxes at all levels. Rent subsidy, child care, child support, medical care, ownership incentives, job training and so on are there to help the “have nots”. Is it enough? I honestly do not know but I do know we are trying.

So could there be another issue in Lawrence that drives this debate? Could part of our business community be using this issue to further their own interests? Certainly, they will not come out and say they want more for themselves. However, if you wrap their interests in the “have-have not” issue does that not benefit them? Just exactly who benefits from our tax money to “downtown” – the “have nots”? Maybe the obvious is correct, certain business interests do.

I just might point out that those very interests have actually contributed to the “have not” problem. Lawrence is below the Kansas average in pay to employees (and Kansas is no shining star). So we exploit the students (and everyone else) by paying them low wages and conceal our ploy by constantly raising the “have- have not” issue as a distraction.

If I am right, and I just may be, how could we all fall for this? Must we constantly use tax money to subsidize business interests in the name of the “have nots”? Why have we allowed this artificial east-west issue to be used to divide us?

So headdoctor, you are the "blog" policeman. To borrow one of your past comments; who appointed you the tax - no blog god?

Unlike many of the bloggers on this list, I trade under my real name. People can goggle me and find actual actions on my part to implement my philosophy in the real world. I have never considered anyone on this blog space in a way that would have me maintain any sort of history on them. So, I really know nothing about headdoctor or anybody else (other than others who traffic under their own names).

Now, where am I coming from? Many blogs in this space are on light an non-controversal topics. Thye draw many comments. I comment on current events. I am political misaligned with many bloggers on this list; I therefore, expect to be attacked- frequently and soundly. I anticipate many people avoiding my inputs for many reasons - to include my opinions. That is why I am here - to challenge. Only occasionally have I, in my opinion, advocated anything. I usually respond to something in someone else’s blogs or comments with which I disagree. So, yes, I am disagreeable.

First of all most of my comments are opinion. Occasionally I have facts to back up what I say and when I do, I say so. My opinion is just that; no better or worse then anybody else’s opinion.

Sometimes I comment on what I perceive as facts and the misapplication or misstatement of them. Those comments are usually related to personal experience, training or facts actually sought from a government web site. My comments on social security fall in this category because I have been trained by CMS and AARP on the program

Most of the time I opine on what I perceive as faulty logic. My opinions on the linkage of infant mortality to the quality of health care and the need for national health care falls in this category.

Sometimes I opine because I bring a differing perspective. My age, my military background and our vagabond life are different from many bloggers on this system.

Frequently, I opine about what I consider inequities. Our progressive tax system that is not progressive falls into this category. Our unwillingness to care properly for our homeless is another. Making a small number of us clear the sidewalk quickly regardless of conditions is another. Bribing senators and congressmen to vote for a bill is another. Spending our city tax money on questionable economic development is another. Much of what I opine is directed at government.

One frequent focus of my opinion is the constant stream of gripes demanding that the government do something. While I am frequently sympathetic with the issues I constantly demand to know where the money is coming from. It always fascinates me that when I suggest a source, I usually am attacked. Do most of the people on this list think that government services are free?

Another big gripe is what I see as a constant stream of data that comes unchallenged from sources that are clearly partisan or suspect. Health care brings out a lot of that. So does some of our local issues. Just because something is on somebody’s web site does not make it so – even the UN data. As an example, listing the set of our school administrators on a blog with the inference that by firing them we can save all that money – but provided nothing that relates to the functions they actually perform and why we no longer need to perform them . In my opinion in the case of the UN data one needs to look at the assumptions (real and implied), how the measurement criteria were selected (important when many UN members have a national system), the methodology to collect the data (some nations deny the UN the ability to verify what they supply) and other consideration in information management that a freshmen at KU would understand.

A basic gripe is that some bloggers on this list resort to personal invective when they disagree with me or I with them on matters of opinion (sometimes stated as fact). Unfortunately, I have at times resorted to the same when a personal attack is levied against me. My failure; I am human and I do draw a lot of invective.

And yes, sometimes I am trying to protect the two of us from what I call the “mob”. Continuously increasing taxes or reducing established benefits at our age can be devastating – we have no ability to recover. Selling me a government solution while demanding cuts in the government solutions imposed upon us previously will draw a comment – every time. Most of those commenting in this blog space seem to have little familiarity with history. What they do not like about today they want to change right now. There is no regard for where the society has been or for sacrifices made by others along the way. Fault is liberally applied retrospectively based on new definitions of what is now proper and used to demand further selective sacrifice.

We all know that cuts to our schools and social services have become punitive (except for Americans for Prosperity and their fellow travelers). We all know we need more revenue; there is little if any waste still in our state budget because we have been cutting it for a decade.

The response from our legislature and governor is to increase taxes on those who have been hit hardest by our economic decline - mostly government caused. Sales taxes hit hardest on the lower income segment of our society.

We do not even seem to want to discuss a tax increase on the really wealthy who in general have done well despite the declining economy. Sustaining a progressive tax system that is not progressive is one more example of how most of us are disrespected by our local and state elites.

Is it not time that somebody (our representatives0 put forward the notion of adding tax brackets to our state income tax - not to increase taxes on most of us- to increase taxes on those with incomes over $100K. I am not talking class warfare. I am talking tax equity. Why should a family of four with a Kansas taxable income of $65K pay the same marginal rate as a Kansan with such an income exceeding $1,000,000?

It would be nice to force the “party of no” to say no to increasing taxes on the wealthy. Even if they vote it down, at least we would have a record of those who think the really rich are overtaxed (besides Rush and Fox News).

This sounds so simple to me – what am I overlooking?

In my recent history, I have attended several symposiums on how to present a message – in these cases “frame” the message. If you wish to advocate something, how should you present it too those you hope to convince. This concept does not suggest lying but finding a specific and related concept that is favorably viewed by the group to be influenced.

For example, if you wish to establish another massive federal dependency – in this case for health care – you do not address the income transfer required to achieve your goal. You do in this example argue that reform is needed. You find a demon in the form of insurance companies and focus on real and imagined malfeasance. You can even help your advocacy by indirectly encouraging others to represent that the cost is low and the benefits high. If any one challenges you, the issue is “reframed” to reform and the meanness of those who do not support it. At all costs, you avoid arguing about money – an argument you might lose. The real issue here is reforming our system to remove some generally agreed upon shortcoming – not creating a massive income transfer program

Another example is our “Save our Schools” initiatives. The issue is “framed” as preserving neighborhood schools. There is some truth in that. What is neglected is that the specific schools to be saved are somewhat unique. Even if one were closed, the remaining smaller schools would still be within the definition of neighborhood schools in Lawrence. We demonize the administrators, an easy task, neglecting to admit that there are functions to perform and others will have to do them. You concoct solutions that seem reasonable but conceal the disproportionate impacts. The real issue, is of course, how to we fairly and equitably address a systemic and probably long-term deficit in school funding.

Another example is our recent initiative on resourcing our public bus system. The issue was framed as a necessary step to enable the poor to have transportation to and from work. It was generally concealed that there were other alternatives of lesser cost that would have served the poor. Anybody that suggested alternatives was demonized as being against the poor. As a result, we saddled ourselves with a long-term sales tax. Now, it seems to be evolving, that the funding sought may be inadequate so we may have to make up future shortfalls from our general revenue stream. The real issue here should have been how to support the transportation needs of a small segment of our community and not continuation of an underutilized system – especially given the KU system.

It seems to me that some of my fellow bloggers are very adept in “framing” issues. They are very committed to their advocacy. They seem to be willing to use every debate technique – to include misrepresentation and in some case misdirection - to sell their product. Perhaps the rest of us should be more alert to those techniques. Failure to do so may yield consequence that may be very detrimental to our community.

Some years ago, President Reagan started a game with the intention of reducing public expenditures. After entering office, he quickly prevailed on a Democratic Congress to lower tax rates. A major deficit resulted. Federal expenditures were significantly reduced. That tactic has been tried again, not always with success.

Democrats have relatively consistently raised taxes early in their term to try to recover some of the lost federal programs. President Clinton also cut some social programs of his own (big ones) that enabled him to balance the budget while in office.

President Obama appears to have a different approach. He has significantly increased federal expenditures (about 25% increase). He is also striving to create a major new entitlement by assuming a federal responsibility to buy health care for many. The combined affect of these increases when added to the already unfunded liabilities for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, CHIPS and others will consume the entire Gross national Product in a little more than a decade.

Now, I speculate this is a reverse Reagan. President Obama will now call for frugality. He will place the nation between a significant tax increase or cutting services to a majority of the population. So taxes will go up. The increases will not be confined to the wealthy; in my humble opinion, the wealthy will pretty much skate despite a return to Clinton era tax rates. The middle class will get hit, and hard.

We will also ask seniors to take a hit in their medical care and in their social security. We will probably try to move rapidly to means testing those programs. This in spite of the fact that all living seniors have more than paid for their Social Security and a good part of Medicare Part A benefits. Rationing of health care under Medicare will also slowly evolve. Veteran’s services will be cuts. Combat wounded veterans will be asked to pay for their medical care, as they were earlier last year. Other veterans will pay more. Government retirement programs will be retroactively cut – significantly. Everyone with health insurance will see a significant increase. The Administration will argue it is the insurance companies. It will most likely be the costs of all the health care mandates sought by the Democrats. Commercial health insurance will decline in coverage to match federal health programs. More people will be forced into the insurance pool - means tested.

Bottom line: The long sought Democratic goals of reducing most of us to an equality of outcome will be achieved. Only the elites will have quality health care, comfortable retirements and satisfying jobs. The rest of us will find employment in the service sector with the ensuing lower wages and less attractive work environments. That, or we will be on public assistance. As happened in Great Britain, the politically connect unions and groups will seek and receive special treatment in return for voting correctly. The rest - well enjoy the ride.

You wanted change. Hopefully you can make it into the élites or other protected groups otherwise it will be all down hill from what our sitcoms portrayed as the desirable American life. Unfortunately, this ride will likely end in a train wreck but not before it irretrievably changes our social, financial and political systems and eventually leads to bankruptcy because nobody is paying and everybody is taking.

So, forgive me if I do not see the benefits in all these changes. I will be a loser – a big loser. I will resist this game. I will help the Republicans take back control of the Congress. I will still probably be had. So glad I was stupid enough to trust my government!!