Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”

Belief

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”

All I Know

                                                                                                      

There were times when Will Rogers showed poor judgment. Like the time he said of Leon Trotsky:

I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn’t like. When you meet people, no matter what opinion you might have formed about them beforehand, why, after you meet them and see their angle and their personality, why, you can see a lot of good in all of them.

And, though said tongue-in-cheek, his view of the press also was ill-considered:

Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.

If you believe what you read there, you're likely to be misled. The media, and most notably the press, are only occasionally reliable – and you'll never be sure of when that occasion is. There are times, especially with a “hot” story, when publication is premature in order to guarantee a “scoop.” Speed may trump fact-checking and accuracy may be sacrificed in order to be first. It's one of those cases which displays the least of their sins – making a sloppy but honest mistake.ⁱ But more often the intent is to present a point of view. Sometimes it is that of the reporter, however often it is that of another party. Some examples are in order. And they include: the reporter who consciously mixes fact with his own opinion,ⁱⁱ who slants the content of his story to promote his own agenda, is practicing “advocacy journalism,” and no warning of the bias presented as truth may be offered by the organ in which the story is told, because the “spin” frequently corresponds to the opinion offered on the editorial page.ⁱⁱⁱ The story, therefore, demonstrates the “proof” and the justification for the paper's position, and bears witness as to why the readers should support this position.

In this instance the reporter is presenting his own version of truth, or that of his editor. But there are also many instances when the “truth” corresponds to the beliefs of others. A paper may tailor its articles to the views of the public. Regular readers of specific publications have particular perspectives and expect the publication to live up to them. Should there be some deviation from the anticipated dogma, readership may suffer, since the readers are really looking for a validation of their own preconceived notions.

Of course it is possible, and, unfortunately, it is common, for a reporter or publication to mislead^iv while telling the truth. All that is necessary, even if there is no slant or misstatement conveyed by what actually appears, is the failure to print the whole truth. An article may be completely accurate as far as it goes, but context may be withheld. The same outcome results from the fact that papers have more information than they can print and there is no requirement that they print both sides of a story. So they wind up telling only part of the story, by means of editorial selection. Only what the publisher wants you to know will appear. What the publication contains is true – and probably what the reader thought anyway – but it's deceptive.

An extension of this form of misrepresentation^v involves the placement of stories – the prominence given them. A front page, “above the fold,” story will have much more impact than one on the inside, and it's far more likely to be read. Similarly one with a picture will more likely be read than one without. The picture, itself, may have nothing to do with the story,^vi but its presence will affect the way the reader will understand it, even if the association of the two leads to an incorrect conclusion. And a good headline writer can create a totally false impression for those who only scan the bold print.

More insidious, however, are those cases when the “news” is dictated by some particular governmental agency or by some pressure group. If, for example, a nation doesn't permit reporting from its territory, reporters will focus their attention on the places where they are permitted to work. The “news,” however damning it may seem, is only likely to come from free countries. Those who might be embarrassed by events on their soil often suppress it. And the news agencies acquiesce or simply lose interest in the situation.^vii

Or the offending party may dictate the “news.” In some lands the only news releases are those that come from the government, or those that are censored by it. Those in charge control whatever you read about, so as to ensure that the message you get is the one the authorities want you to believe. A local reporter who doesn't observe their policies and standards will not have press credentials for very long, and foreign reporters who act in a similar manner will soon be deported.

But those are the lucky ones. A government or a terrorist group whose story is not told in the manner desired may injure or kill the offender, or his family. It's a good way ensure that the story told is the one in keeping with the interests of the “persuader.”

The bottom line is that you can't believe everything you read, or learn from the media.^viii If that's all you know, you've got a big problem. And there are others who want to convince you of things that may not be true.

I'll have more to say about liars next week.

Next episode: “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” – Don't trust anyone (except me).

i      This would include both errors of fact and interpretation. The former includes both misinformation and misunderstanding of the information available. For example, “Dewey Defeats Truman” was the result of insufficient information and an excess of wishful thinking. Misunderstanding of available information, however, may result from such considerations as cultural bias. For example, Americans understood (and the press uncritically reported) the results of the recent Israeli election as reflecting a desire for a foreign policy change – something important to them – while Israelis voted more on the basis of social issues, since there was consensus on the need for security.

ii      Admittedly, although the bias is usually high in the awareness of the reporter, although he may not view it as a bias, it is sometimes unconscious and the article is written in good faith with the writer seeing it as objective, but that doesn't change the reality that the actual facts may be presented in a slanted manner.

iii    In such cases the reporter may be slanting an article in the interests of job security.

iv     Lie.

v      Lying even though what is stated is true.

vi     It may be a “stock” photograph from a different time, or taken under different circumstances, which is either not acknowledged as such, or is made clear only in tiny print unlikely to be noticed by the reader.

vii    They justify their position by saying that everyone knows the situation, and there is no point in reporting it repeatedly, especially if it places other reporters at risk.

viii   Including the “tweet” you just received. Or the blog – like this one – you just read.

Oh, Give Me A Home

                                                                            

What's the point of the whole internet project as it relates to our debt? Wrong question. It's in the singular, and there's no single solution to our economic problem, so there are several different points involved. In fact the project can't possibly solve it alone, and wasn't intended to. Indeed, though it will provide an important start, many additional projects will be necessary. But there are certain gains that can achieved through the use of a nationwide internet capability and it's worth rehearsing them.  So here are some suggestions.

The first is the backbone of the proposal – internet and telephone service from wherever you are in the United States and its territories.ⁱ With whatever device you own you can have internetⁱⁱ service wherever you are, even in a moving car or train. And there will be no dead areas between towers.

Next will be the availability of a state-provided computer for everyone. True, that computer will only get material distributed by the government, but governmental “connectedness” will allow for greater participation by all – from the President to the average citizen – in those activities that make our country unique. Only a few are mentioned, but American ingenuity can certainly bring us many more applications.

The various applications have advantages, however, besides promoting good citizenship. As was demonstrated, they also offer us, among other advantages, the opportunity for more efficient and less costly operation of the government. The elimination of a need for congressional buildings with congressmen and Executive employeesⁱⁱⁱ working from their homes will result in lowering governmental costs, as will the implementation of a cloud-based IRS. There would also be better tracking of taxpayers resulting in greater revenues at a lower cost.

It has to be remembered that an important impetus for the entire project is the desire to lessen, and, perhaps, ultimately eliminate, the National Debt. The outsourcing of many governmental functions will contribute to that goal. And that brings us to the final piece of this aspect of the puzzle. Once we have sent Congress and the President home, and the other criminals to foreign countries, once we have outsourced most of our functions and moved the rest to inexpensive parts of the country, and once we have limited the use of paper, saving huge forests while maximizing the returns from such natural resources as shale-oil, we'll possess one of the most valuable commodities that exists anywhere – one on which our country was founded – property. The Federal government is the largest land owner in the country with nearly 65o million acres. While some has to be retained as Indian reservations or military bases,^iv a lot becomes available when the functions served are exported, and some simply serve as park land. Many claim that the flora and fauna are a heritage we should leave for our children (along with the massive debt we're piling up for them now), but that could be accomplished by building an area where some of them can live and be displayed in their natural habitat, and the remainder could provide us with a large injection of capital, capital that could be used in small part to maintain those new habitats but would largely be transferred to payments on what we owe. Development of that property would also provide us with many, many jobs. And with the current economic situation, the prices of new homes in the beautiful settings available are likely to be quite attractive, providing residences amid America's spacious skies where we can dream our patriots' dreams, and simultaneously end current land management costs while putting the property on the tax roles.

But in addition to land, we'd have a lot more to offer. Were we to outsource our correctional functions, to India for example, many properties would become available. Some could be converted into condominiums or other housing. And the ample surrounding property, properly landscaped and provided with suitable amenities might make the new residences quite desirable. Imagine living in a beautifully remodeled National Historic Landmark with an unobstructed and stunning view of San Francisco Bay, with rock pools and a colony of seabirds, and with access by the nation's first hybrid propulsion ferry. It's a dream, and no security will be necessary. And despite its name, the development would be a windfall, rather than an albatross. Occupy Alcatraz! It gives the “occupy” movement a whole new meaning. And the governments – Federal and State – have many properties already developed and only in need of a little freshening up to become sources of income rather than burdens on the taxpayers.

Moreover we, the taxpayers, own many other developed properties around the country that could be sold with their land to private developers at large profits, and they could benefit us all by their annual tax payments to the Treasury. Additionally, some of what already exists should be considered for increased tourist potential. Washington DC, for example.

Once DC is emptied of politicians, outsourced services, and unneeded bureaucrats,^v many buildings and open land would be available for “repurposing.” Because of its history as the nation's capital, it is already an important tourist destination, but, with the internet in place and the government moved elsewhere, let me describe a District of Columbia that would be far more popular with both Americans and foreign visitors:

The White House would be converted into a luxury hotel. The congressional office buildings, printing office, and other unnecessary and abandoned buildings, would be leased to banks and to major corporations, foreign and domestic, as home offices. The Library of Congress would be subdivided into countless fancy restaurants, large and small, serving the finest cuisines from all over the world to people with a broad range of budgets. The National Mall, almost a mile and a quarter from the Capitol steps to the Washington Monument, would serve ideally as the world's largest outdoor mall,^vi while the Pentagon would be subdivided as an indoor mall. While the footprint of the Pentagon is not as large as the Mall of America, it has seven stories to the Mall's four, and combined with the proposed outdoor National Mall mall, and the giant food court at the Library of Congress,^vii there will be plenty of action for all who come to visit – and it's far more convenient than Minnesota.

The various national museums would remain, since the American heritage is sacrosanct, but they would be supplemented by additional facilities to emphasize our heritage. The Lincoln Memorial, for example, would be turned into an expanded version of Madame Tussauds with tributes to all our heroes from Pocahontas to Wolfman Jack. The Viet Nam Memorial would be a superb outdoor cafe. And most important, especially for tourists, a large theme/amusement park would be constructed. “DC Adventure Park” would, of course, be managed by DC Comics^viii, although Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are certainly part of our national heritage. A mechanical George Washington could throw dollars across the Potomac, Booth can assassinate President Lincoln, Michelle Rhee would distribute school vouchers, there's no end of sites that can be used as fun houses or chambers of horrors, and, as pièce de résistance, the Washington Monument could be converted into a parachute jump more than twice the height of the fabled ride in Coney Island.

And there's little doubt that, utilizing American know-how, we can come up with many additional projects for turning government owned and managed land into taxable private holdings, using the savings, as well as the sale prices, to cut our debt. (For example, wouldn't it make sense to transfer all the graves in Arlington National Cemetery^ix to some unused land in Iowa or North Dakota and build town houses on the site? And we could offer boat rides on the Potomac.^x) That's the goal. And a national internet will allow many additional projects to take place while promoting greater participation of all our citizens in America the Beautiful.

Keeping up with the times pays. And deer and antelope play more intelligently than elephants and donkeys.

Next episode: “All I Know” – And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

i      One of the many points not mentioned earlier was that additional charges can be applied for faster service.

ii     And GBS.

iii    Including the President.

iv     Though many of these functions could be merged with tremendous savings. According to WikiPedia,there are 149 active military facilities in the United States, 115 that are closed, and 94 overseas. Even if the numbers are a little off, it is hard to believe some cannot be merged. Except for the need for particular political members of Congress to have facilities in their districts, despite the cost.

v      That's almost all of them.

vi     If it isn't converted into a flea market.

vii   The Supreme Court can eat there. It would be inappropriate to move the Justices and turn them into the circuit riders they used to be. And how much harm can the jokers do with Batman there to watch them? (See following text.)

viii   You know – Batman, Superman, the Green Lantern and all that crowd.

ix     We should probably leave the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for old time's sake and because it's a good tourist attraction.

x      If you catch one of George Washington's dollars your next ride is free.

Taxation Without Representation

                                                                                        

We've already reviewed some, but certainly not all, of the expenses assumed in our names by the government pledged to uphold the Constitution. The greatest of these are the so-called “entitlements,”ⁱ such as the welfare package, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like.ⁱⁱ It's a mixed bag. Part of it is shared by the states,ⁱⁱⁱ while the Federal government is solely responsible for many of the programs. Indeed, some of it is funded through the donations^iv of individuals. But the combination of the cost of entitlements and the debt service for what we owe^v is more than can be handled by the implementation of an internet service so they will not be further addressed here, except to note that these programs are here to stay. Their promises have been around too long for us to back out now, and too many people have come to depend on them. All that we can try to do is to rein them in, make their administration less burdensome, and implement some of the cost-saving methods that have been proposed.

 

But it's time to return to the use of the internet to reduce the National Debt, and, more specifically, how we can trim the expense of collecting revenues.   I am most interested in the revenues provided through the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS.^vi For better or worse, we all deal with it. At least we're supposed to.

The tax system is chaotic. And no one understands it although there are a lot of interpreters who claim they do, or promote their own ability to play the system. Filling and filing taxes is a big business – especially for tax franchises and computer software makers. The IRS is now able to handle returns filed electronically, but that merely remains an option. Universal internet access should be used to make this kind of filing mandatory. Forms should be completed on line – using a government-designed audio/video program guiding taxpayers. There's a lot of money in it and it makes sense that some of it should go back to the taxpayers. The program would ask the same questions as (or possibly better questions than) existing programs and services. Actually they should be a lot better. It's reasonable to expect that the IRS's questions will be more perceptive than someone else's, since no one could possibly understand IRS regulations better than the IRS,^vii and the forms should be simple enough^viii for the average citizen to manage on his own. All IRS forms should be included in the program so that it is (theoretically) possible to complete the task on your own. Even so, some individuals may still require “professionals” to do the dirty work for them, especially for businesses or others who require complex returns, but if the government program is mandated the rest of us can get a cut of the action, even if done by a professional.

Requiring electronic filing of a governmental form, with no option for any kind of filing requiring expensive human intervention, will provide more than the saving of money (a Good thing by itself). Instantaneous auditing of all returns will be possible, as well as immediate payment. By instituting governmental credit/debit cards the IRS can rapidly collect what is due, as well as interest payments on what is owed. And if refunds are warranted, they can be credited immediately. The credit card accounts that result from this system can also be used to collect fees for other services^ix

Converting the existing method of tax collection to an internet/credit account such as this will allow the government to identify those who haven't filed their returns.^x As would be the case with voting, machine function would be frozen if tax forms are not filed. Until the form is completed,^xi what might appear on screen is a notification of the penalty, which would increase daily, for not filing the tax forms.^xii Prior to the filing date, for some predetermined period of time, a daily countdown of days until the deadline would be on screen continuously until filing, and it may annoy some people enough to file, in order to rid themselves of the reminder.

The discussion, however – that of mechanisms of lowering the debt – cannot be completed without acknowledgment that many jobs will be lost. It was previously suggested that the workers would be beneficial to private industry, especially computer construction, but there could be governmental jobs as well, though some may require retraining. Many individuals will be needed for computer repair and internet management, and this will absorb some of the bureaucrats who won't be needed. Most important, though, will be construction of the “infrastructure” – an act dear to the hearts of all our people. Included in such an effort, of course, would be the construction of communications capabilities, including the burying of overhead wires and cables which are susceptible to weather damage, and the protection of the nation' electrical system.^xiii But this is only a small part of what needs to be done. Great efforts should be undertaken to shore up those areas in which damage can be anticipated from future episodes of unusually harsh weather. It will require a large work force to do this, but it will lessen costs and grief in the future. It may diminish the expenses for agencies like FEMA.

Most important in the construction effort would be the building of new roads across country. Much is said about the inefficiency of the automobile as a source of transportation^xiv and the need for more public transportation. The reality, however, is that Americans love their cars. And the personal vehicle can get someone to the place he wants to go, rather than to a “central” clearing house inconvenient to everybody. And the individual driver makes his own schedule. Imagine having modern highways coast to coast with E-ZPass and never having to stop between Key West and Point Barrow^xv or wherever. At least not for tolls. The availability of the roads will create a stimulus for the automobile industry and a need for additional gasoline, until another power source is perfected. Many displaced workers could be employed in the shale-oil industry. Properly managed, shale-oil will make us the greatest producer of gas in the world, and if that is as much of a boon to our economy as anticipated, it will certainly have a long-lived and beneficial effect on our National Debt.

And that brings us back to where we started. There's been some rambling, and there's one more topic I want to cover,^xvi but the bottom line is that a national internet capability will offer the possibility of changing America (for the better). We might even get our representatives to actually represent us and cut our taxes. A higher internet may help us lower our safety net – at least what it costs us.

Enter.

Next episode: “Oh, Give Me A Home” – Help for the foreclosed.

i      How these are viewed depends very much on your philosophy. Some see them as a religious obligation – an act of charity – while others see them as a moral obligation of the rich toward the poor; some consider them to be in keeping with the Constitution, though some view them as contradicting the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Some don't care about the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and some simply don't care.

ii     Conservatives argue that the whole system represents redistribution of wealth from those who have, to those who do not; that the provision of entitlements furnishes a paving stone (or several stones) on the road to Socialism. Liberals point out that everyone, even Conservatives, gains by government programs. (Some might even contend that Socialism is preferable to Capitalism – but that's a different discussion.) They're likely to cite such benefits as the funding of the government itself, the military, road building, and various subsidies. These, however, are dwarfed by the entitlements which the government has taken on itself, and, indeed, some of the programs noted by the Liberals, like the government and the military, are specifically mandated by the Constitution. (Many of our citizens would prefer to pay fees for the non-Constutionally-mandated services if, in exchange, their taxes were significantly lowered because they were not forced to pay for services they did not need or want.)

iii    Or imposed on the states. Like “entitlements,” definitions are in the eye of the beholder.

iv    “Donations” isn't really an accurate description of the funding method of Social Security since participation is mandatory. In any event, your donations may not cover the extent of your benefits, and the difference must be covered by those currently working and by taxpayers in general.

v       Over sixteen and a half trillion dollars at the time of this writing (February 13, 2013).

vi      The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution legalizes the income tax, but our “representatives” (the legislators), and the bureaucrats they hire to write the rules, have found ways to soak us that we would never have approved if given the opportunity. In reality we understand neither the rules nor the forms.

vii     Okay. You can stop laughing now.

viii   Perhaps it's wishful thinking to credit the IRS with the ability to make anything simple, but it would be nice if they could.

ix     Like the “co-pay” for computer repair, lottery payments, and the fee for voting if the individual accepts it.

x       It hasn't been discussed, but a parallel internet mechanism would have to be instituted for businesses, charities, and other organizations, so they can receive pertinent information and file necessary documents.

xi      No matter how long it takes.

xii     In addition to interest on unpaid taxes.

xiii  Perhaps we should consider a second electric grid as well to provide redundancy in times of disaster.

xiv    And its carbon tireprint.

xv     We'll give Canada a cut if they participate.

xvi    See “Oh, Give Me A Home,” which will appear on March 17^th. I'll bet you can't wait.

Between Jobs

                                                                                       

As I write this, we – or at least the Roman Catholics among us – are in an interregnum (that, however, doesn't seem to be the right word). By the time you read it, though, a new Pope will probably have been elected.

Elected.

That also seems like a funny word. While “elected” is often understood to mean “chosen by G-d,” in this instance it is the College of Cardinals that is doing the choosing. Perhaps they're working under His direction, however the discussion seems to be more about management than sanctity. Should the position be entrusted to one of the Old Guardⁱ or to a reformer? There's little discussion about saintliness or miracles.ⁱⁱ There seems to be more attention paid to politics than theology.

Many religions do not accept any distinction between secular and religious law. There is G-d, but not Caesar. Consequently some governments hold this view. The American perspective is different. Our Constitution, in the First Amendment, forbade Congress from making any law regarding the establishment of a state religion, and many have interpreted the meaning of this stricture more widely. They consider any law regarding religion, or any action by the state which may be seen to help all religions as violating what Jefferson termed “a wall of separation between Church & State.”ⁱⁱⁱ The amendment, however, only deals with the establishment of a single official faith. In any event, any politician whose faith deviates from normative “American Protestantism” is looked upon with some suspicion. Indeed, when John Kennedy ran for President he had to state that he would not let his (Catholic) religion influence his political decisions, and there cannot be much doubt that his election would have been far easier had he been a Protestant.

The choice of a religious leader, however, follows different rules. There is an assumption of faith in all of the candidates, although each may understand the requirements of that faith somewhat differently from the others. And no one declaims or disclaims any political views – at least not publicly. We all have views on a wide variety of different subjects and it is unrealistic to believe that our decisions will not be molded based on everything we have been taught and everything we have experienced before. We cannot separate ourselves from any aspect of our beliefs, whether they be social, political, or religious, and we are fooling ourselves if we think we can.

Absent events like those leading to the election of Pope Fabian in the third century of the common era, the new Pontiff will be chosen by fallible humans based on what are primarily political concerns. As his predecessor was a man of unshakable faith, so must the new Pope be. But the man elected will have a political agenda along with a religious one. We can only hope that the choice will be well-advised and the new Pope will guide his “flock” with faith, love, and wisdom. We can be sure he'll have political savvy as well.

i      Not the Swiss Guard, but a supporter of the Roman Curia – one favoring “inside” control of the Church.

ii     Although many think it will be a miracle if the new Pope can make the scandals of the past disappear.

iii    The quotation appears in a letter that Jefferson sent to “a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.” The letter dates from 1802.