Death And Taxes

The United States has gone to pot. Last century we tried prohibition of alcohol but it didn't work. So we legalized it and collect taxes as it kills an estimated 88,000 people a year, including more than 10,000 in alcohol-related traffic accidents.

Effective today “recreational pot” is legal in California since it satisfies voters and brings in lots of tax dollars. It may make users “high” and increase the number of deaths, but it's estimated that it will bring in a billion dollars a year. It's well worth the trade-off – unless you're one of those who dies. We've given in to what we know is wrong, but we'll make a fortune from it. Like alcohol, hash is an important industry.

Sixteen other states (counting the nation's capital as a state) have marijuana on the dispensary – Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington, D.C. Perhaps it has some valid medical uses, but, more important, it has the support of voters and brings in lots of tax dollars.

Cigarettes have long been on the market. They're big business in our country. But, according to the CDC,

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.

Smoking is the cause of innumerable illnesses, but who's counting. We make a fortune on the tobacco industry. Smoking is good for the economy. Other details are irrelevant. Risk and benefit are the forces that drive us. The “benefits?” Tax dollars, generous help from whatever industry and lobbyists have to offer immediately and in the next election, and the love and support of voters. The risks – whether for alcohol, cigarettes, or pot are usually either ignored (consciously by industry) or denied. “It'll happen to someone else.”

Legalizing pot, we're told, is no big deal. It leads to good feelings and joy. And money.

What's to fear? If there's a down side we'll worry about it later. And there won't be. “It'll happen to someone else.”

January 1, 2018

Deep Pockets

If there's one thing that illustrates the similarity between capitalism and socialism it's “deep pockets.” Clearly that requires some elaboration, and the best place to start is with a definition and explanation.

The term usually refers to a party that is well endowed – fiscally, not physically. It may be an individual or a commercial enterprise, but it's one with a lot of money. So the term indicates someone or something that has its “pockets” filled, or even overflowing.

Whoever has deep pockets, therefore, is a target for someone wanting the money. He's rich. Probably one of the 1%. So it is someone (or some organization) we hate, and about whom we feel no guilt when trying to obtain some of his (her, its) funds. It may be in the form of an unwarranted or inflated insurance claim, a legal action, or the call for a handout. Whatever it is, you pay. And whoever is nominally billed doesn't really matter – you pay, one way or another.

One of the most publicized forms is by law suit, or the threat of one. A claim is made against a(n individual or a) large corporation – one that is very rich – and whether the claim is or is not legitimate is irrelevant. The cheapest way for the corporation to make the problem disappear, and to minimize the negative publicity, is to negotiate with whoever is suing – and that means with the legal firm that is handling the claim (as it has done many times before with similar justified or unjustified claims). A moderately large settlement with the plaintiff, or a huge one with the “class,” can usually be arranged to end the unpleasantness quickly. Even if the claim has no merit, it is usually cheaper to settle than to fight and risk a hostile press and public.

That's especially true since we live in a capitalist system, and the cost of the settlement is incorporated into the cost of production, so prices rise. After all, the stockholders shouldn't be made to suffer. Even if the claim is legitimate, the costs are passed on (to you) after a scapegoat is found – usually a low-level employee who can't fight back. No executive is ever considered responsible unless the publicity or the political exposure requires it. And the company will get back the costs anyway. They'll raise their rates and charges, and the price of the settlement will actually be split among members of the population – including you. The company is in business to make money, and they'll do so by passing on the costs to the consumer. Cough it up. You need them.

There are occasions, however, when a case goes to trial and a congenial jury can be made to identify and sympathize with the plaintiff's plight, although that may have nothing to do with the claim. There are occasions when such a jury will decree large enough verdicts – both “compensatory” and punitive – to bankrupt the company. Which means that a product or service is no longer available to you and the remaining companies control more of the market. It's inconvenient, but that's fair repayment for all the “suffering” that the plaintiff has endured. You'll certainly be sympathetic, even if you suffer because of it. After all, it could have been you.

And if it is you, all the better. You'll become rich and have your own deep pockets if you succeed, but you can live with that. After all, you're not one of “them.” You'll never be one of them, one of the 1%. You're just a hard working citizen, indemnified for what you've been through.

The same is true with insurance. Whatever the cost of claims made against the company, they'll eventually be passed on to those buying the protection. It doesn't matter if the claims are justified or not – though the insurer may investigate astronomical or obviously false claims to lower expenses and increase profits. Still you can be sure that the deep pockets will be yours, and, eventually, you'll wind up paying for all those claims.

But, lest you think this is solely a product of capitalism, the same is true in the public sector, though the language is changed a little. We're all sympathetic of the plight of the needy, and we demand that our government help out. They certainly will, and so will the politicians who seek their votes. In a society that provides various kinds of welfare, a society that tries to take from the rich and give to the poor, the deep pockets belong to “the government.” But that's the taxpayer – you – so you wind up paying. (Or your children and grandchildren do.)

“From each according to his means …” So the earnings of the workers are apportioned to those who lack. It's a redistribution of income from the “rich” to the “poor.” Karl Marx was right. It's socialism. We call it generosity, or the provision of services to the poor, or concern for the needy among us. It's the least we can do. We feel good about what we've done. (We do, however, curse the politicians for raising taxes to pay for all the programs we favor.) But whether or not it's “right,” it's socialism.

In short, whether it's capitalism, as exemplified by a “greedy” company, or socialism, in the form of support of “needy” citizens, you fund it. No matter who submits the bill, you wind up paying. The “deep pockets” are inevitably yours, irrespective of the economic system. They have that in common. There's no such thing as a free lunch.




November 3, 2016

Death, Ethics, And Education

Triaging has been a feature of medical care for a long time. It's a method for sorting patients so as to make the best use of limited resources. According to the usual pattern, patients are sorted according to the following plan:

           Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.

Medical attention is initially addressed to those in the third group. They're likely to be the most “productive” recipients of the limited resources.

Ethicists have discussed the proper husbanding of medical resources in view of the costs that have a significant effect on society. Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, raised a sensitive issue, fearing that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels” which would decide where limited funds would be used, and deny care to some elderly patients. Denials followed immediately, but the issue, once raised, concerned a lot of people. The patients, especially the grandmas, for whom most of the fear existed, were often those who would best fit into the third category: immediate care might make a positive difference. Whether true or not, it raises serious questions about our use of funds.

I'm 78. I have no school-aged children. But I pay school tax. Long ago I had such children and paid the Day School where they were educated. And I paid the school tax in addition to the tuition. And I've paid ever since although I've never had children in public schools. That allows schools to collect money from all of us for students it doesn't educate. (Actually, international statistics suggests that it doesn't do a very good job for those it does try to educate.) Attempts to get “vouchers” authorized, so those who wished to send their children to private schools would not have to pay twice to improve the quality of the learning in general, and in particular areas, were always opposed by teachers' unions, and always failed to get approval. It was maintained that they'd take funds away from public education. (As does the Department of Education – bureaucrats who supervise the states.) That's true, but vouchers would probably allow children to get a better education – rich and poor alike – if they could choose the school they attended. But besides acting as a prod for professional improvement, such a system would also cost the jobs of some union members, and this would be intolerable, despite the fact that some teachers were not up to the job.

The complaint was also made that vouchers would aid parochial schools and thus constituted a violation of the first amendment by destroying the separation of church. The Constitution, of course, has no such mandate – only against the establishment of a state religion. That, however, doesn't stop opponents of vouchers from protesting. And it doesn't stop them from bowing before the god of public education.

(The ante has been raised. Because those with college degrees earn more, and there is a history of free municipal colleges, there is a movement to once again offer free education for almost everyone. Who pays for that? And do we need more cabbies with college degrees? )

Suppose the ethics panel considered the use of public money for an educational system that was functioning poorly. Would they approve the use of limited resources for a failing system when other options existed? Would they pay for the education of all comers, irrespective of qualifications or interest?

Another question that comes to mind is based on the reality that there seems to be no limit on the resources used to save a preemie or an otherwise damaged newborn. No expense is spared and publicity is extensively lavished upon successes. Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended. An additional result may be the markedly increased expenses required to educate these children, which come from the costs of educating others – including the disabled. Do panels of ethicists ever ponder the morality and the wisdom of using limited medical and educational resources this way? I don't mean to suggest that we should withhold care from those who need it – preemies, the disabled, or grandmothers – only to raise the question of how we choose to use our limited resources.

It's basically a political issue. There are repeated and angry demands from all interest groups for the funding of their needs. Where do the funds come from? The treasury that contains our tax money. And the two opposing views of what funding should take place are those of ideologues.

Liberals: We are obliged as a society to care for our most vulnerable citizens, if that is possible. If it's not possible our ethicists will tell us what to do.

The costs should be born by the rich.

Conservatives: You get what you pay for.

They get what we pay for.

Perhaps we should reconsider, or even triage, taxpayer expenses with the aid of ethicists who consider all our problems, and all aspects of each of them.

Tax Day Plastic

Happy April 18^th. It's also the anniversary of Paul Revere's ride. Actually it was Paul Revere, William Dawes and Samuel Prescott who rode, and only Prescott made it to Concord to warn the troops. Revere and Dawes were captured by the Redcoats.

And it's tax day. But you knew that. Anyway, don't wait to pay. We're all depending on you. Today's the day that we make our annual offering to Uncle Sam so he can pay for all the things he's decided we need. Like the military, roads, supervision of the food and drugs we buy, paying the salaries of bureaucrats, welfare, and other similar expenses.

Most of the year, however, we don't think about it. We only consider what the government should be doing, without giving a second thought to how it's financed. It's only on tax day that it becomes obvious that we are paying for it. For only on tax day does it become clear who is responsible for the bill. On any other day all governmental expenses are jake (or cool, or acceptable, copacetic, agreeable, or whatever other term you like). They have nothing to do with us.

So when, on some other day, we join in the demands that the government help us out with whatever we need, that it support this or that group, establish some particular program, or increase its payments to some organization (for example, the United Nations), we give no thought to the financing. The government is accountable to us and we demand that it do what is right and equitable.

And it should.

But we don't always agree on what is right and equitable. No matter. That will get worked out, and in the meantime we've been the agents of moral excellence. It's our Constitutional right to speak out, to demand that it follow whatever path we find proper. Cost is no object. We mustn't deny our country's needs, and those of our fellows who should receive the support to which they're entitled by virtue of being in this country – legally or illegally. After all, the government is paying and the government has plenty of money. Besides, those making the demands want the money to come from the rich (read: “anyone but me”). It's like paying with a credit card. It doesn't hurt until much later, and by the time the bill comes due it's hard to associate it with any particular expense. It's easier just to pay it – even if that means not having something else. There's no correlation with a specific purchase.

We spend most of the year in complete denial – we're in willful disregard of the implications of people's demands – and their ignorance of anything but what they want. (And they're entitled to whatever they desire, whether it's for themselves, or for whatever they consider just.) Very much like children they are cognizant only of their own wants – and, of course, virtue – not considering what it may cost, and who will pay. Very much like a credit card, it doesn't hurt. Someday the bill will come due, but that's not the day of the demands, so there's nothing to worry about. The problem is that, as in the case of a credit card, it's easy to overspend, and that's what we've done. Right now, March 1^st, 2017, as I write this, the national debt, according to “US Debt Clock.org, is approaching twenty trillion (yes, trillion) dollars – that's almost one hundred and sixty-seven thousand dollars per taxpayer. Eventually, however, someone is going to have to pay it, no matter how far down the road we kick the can. And the main funder of the debt will be you – the taxpayer. (Maybe we can delay it long enough to be our grandchildren's problem. I'm sure they won't mind.) It's just like a credit card, only there isn't anyone or any organization that will be able to get you off the hook.

Personally and nationally we spend a good deal of time deciding what we want, not what we can afford. Sooner or later, though, we have to give some thought to what we have done. That day is today – tax day – and however righteous our demands, we have to be prepared to pay for them. Are you ready?


Many happy returns.








March 1, 2017

Charity And Philanthropy

When my children were young I gave them allowances. That's the norm, isn't it? I stipulated, however, how the money was to be used: half could go as spending money, a quarter was to be savings, and the remaining quarter was for tzedakah. That's charity. No “earnings” wholly belonged to them. From the first time they received an “income” they knew that they had a responsibility to share it with those not so fortunate. Helping others is a never ending duty. Even now, every morning at religious services I set aside money for tzedakah. It has nothing to do with other charity I give, but is a daily obligation.

Supporting the less fortunate is a religious obligation that derives, for western faiths, from the Bible (though I'm certain the same view is a part of eastern cultures as well). According to Deuteronomy (11:15), For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: “Thou shall surely open thy hand unto they poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (Jewish Publication Society, 1951) Although tithing is a way of life among many, especially Mormons, initially it was primarily for the support of the Levites who were caring for the Temple when it existed. In Judaism the Rabbis made it clear however that, even though the Temple no longer existed, we were all responsible for supporting the needy. That's what charity is all about. Indeed, the poor themselves were obliged to set aside a portion of the funds they received as charity for the support of those even less fortunate than themselves.

Philanthropy, however, is different. It is practiced, for the most part, by those with large incomes – though even those of modest means can participate – for the goal of philanthropy is to establish means to help communities, rather than individuals, although individuals will benefit from the efforts. A philanthropist may support a university, a hospital, an orchestra, or some similar kind of endeavor. Andrew Carnegie, for example, established libraries around the United States while Bill Gates funds organizations dedicated to improve health care globally. When I was in college – a long time ago – we joked about the plaques that decorated virtually everything around us, whether buildings or microscopes, and which attested to the generosity of the philanthropists who made our education possible. They didn't give us money, but they aided us as we learned how to earn our own. And that philanthropy is the highest form of charity. Maimonides compiled a list of charitable acts in order of their significance and the highest was Giving money, a loan, your time, or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self reliant. That's the way the American Institute of Philanthropy (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eight-rungs-of-the-giving-ladder/73) phrased it.

The same idea, of course, exists in other cultures. While its origin isn't clear, the meaning of the following adage is: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Charity is certainly useful and necessary for dealing with an immediate and compelling circumstance, but it is not a long-term treatment. That's what philanthropy is. The Hershey Trust, established by Milton Hershey in 1905, for example, administers a twelve billion dollar endowment for the Milton Hershey School, and thereby underprivileged children are able to get a level of education that would have been denied them. The long-term benefits of that education for the many generations of children involved, and for society in general, are incalculable. Philanthropic gifts like that are far beyond our individual abilities, but they provide services not funded by the government.

It begins as charity for those who start out with only a little, but it may ultimately turn into philanthropy. The same people who give a little, give a lot when they have it. Every now and then you're likely to read in the paper about someone with a low-paying job who died and left a huge amount, a lifetime of savings to some important cause – often a university or a hospital. There may have been smaller charitable contributions along the way but they're of no interest to anyone but the recipients. They may have an impact on the individual beneficiaries, but it's nothing compared to what society gets from the larger philanthropic enterprise.

According to Professor Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) in his book Who Really Cares, contributions of money, time, and expertise are more likely to come from church-goers than those who don't attend. And those with a close family life and givers as role models. That's not much of a surprise. It's interesting, however, that even many of the poor give (what they can, even it it's a small amount) – usually those who have earned what they have, rather than received it through welfare or another program that doesn't require their work. Similarly, those who have earned fortunes rather than inherited them are more likely to help both individuals and institutions, as are political conservatives.

Liberals tend to be less liberal with their own money than with that of others. (It should be noted that Brooks's work is based on many surveys of donations to individuals and institutions.) There is a common view among them that the government should care for the poor, and that the part of their taxes that supports these efforts constitutes their charity, so they are obligated to little else. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these rules, but the profiles of both the non-givers and the generous are well supported. And “exceptions” are exceptions.) But if the government is not doing enough, higher taxes on the rich (who already give proportionally more besides what they pay in taxes) should solve the problem.

The aid given by governments, however, is neither charitable nor philanthropic. It is merely the furtherance of a “right” to be supported. And governments are usually less interested in supporting the efforts of larger institutions that may be serving the public good, unless it is in the interest of a group of a lawmaker's constituents, or a generous lobbyist.

There's a place for both charity and philanthropy. A valued place. Voluntary rather than coerced giving ranks far higher in any rating of the levels of unselfishness, and it is our generosity as individuals that defines us – not our expectations of the government or of others. If we expect others to do it, it won't get done. If you want something done properly, do it yourself.

Anti-Social And Anti-Socialism

I'm anti-social. I've said it before. But I recognize that most people aren't like me. They enjoy interacting with others and want to instill the same values in those whom they rear. And, to a degree, I accept that judgment. Society requires socialization.

Share. And care. They're among the first lessons we teach our children in jargon and political correctness. We see them as necessary steps in that socialization. And they are. In order to get along you have to go along. That's the theory, but the theory is stifling us as members of a democratic commonwealth. We've turned into a nation of sheep that would not be recognized by our Founding Fathers. For example – although it's not the focus of this discussion – the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion have been converted into the freedom to say only what is acceptable to the loudest and most dogmatic among us (lest your right to speak be withdrawn), and freedom from religion. But I won't dwell on those perversions of America's philosophy today. I have another concern on my mind. Taxes.

Yes, taxes. I don't question their legitimacy. They have an important place in managing our government and our lives, and they're prescribed in the Constitution – primarily to pay debts and to provide for the defense of our country and the protection of our citizens.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States

Who can argue with that? But, of course, the devil is in the details. Who gets taxed, and how much? And what is the meaning of “Welfare,” which seems to be related to “the common Defence [sic] ... of the United States?”

For most Americans the answers to these questions are uncomplicated: tax those who have more money than I do, and provide for me whatever I believe I need for my welfare. Perhaps that's too much of a simplification, but I suspect that it doesn't miss the mark by much. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (and its clones) made the will of “the People” clear: tax the rich (“the 1%”) and provide everyone else with whatever he or she wants. That, however, would seem to be a direct contradiction of the philosophy of most of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their view was that people were

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

and that, in accordance with John Locke, “pursuit of happiness” meant “estate.” Locke also wrote

Reason, which is that Law [“Natural Law”] teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.

And

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.

It's unlikely that Locke, or the Founding Fathers, would have understood or accepted Marx's view (actually it was stated [in French of course] by Louis Blanc nearly a quarter of a century earlier)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It represents a socialist philosophy which favors the redistribution, by government edict, of one's possessions. It's forced sharing. It's a system that denies the individual the “unalienable [sic] Right” to dispose of his or her property as (s)he sees fit (including the right to pass it on to children). It reflects the envy of the possessions of others, and the readiness to give away or take what isn't yours. And by demanding that kind of action from the government they rationalize it as a societal need. But whatever the claimed justification for such redistribution, it (including a punitive tax system designed to accomplish its ends) is no more than theft. But calling it “redistribution” makes it sound so much better. It makes it sound like sharing and caring. And we all know how idealistic and “right” that is.

When we teach our children to share, however, we are teaching them to voluntarily provide others with the things that are important to them. We are less sympathetic when others noisily make demands of them. And we're unlikely to tolerate an outside party taking from our children and giving to the squeaky wheels. There's a difference between charity and extortion.

When we think about the principle of respect for private property it is worth remembering that it is an old precept. And perhaps the ancient proclamation of that principle played a part in our founders' thinking as it should in ours.

You shall not covet ... anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The Big Bang

It was just announced that a century-old hypothesis of Einstein's – something about gravity waves – has been confirmed. (Yes, I know this will be old news by the time this essay is published.) The scientific evidence which has been touted as demonstrating its veracity results from the collision of two black holes, and it happened about a billion years ago – give or take. That's before I was born and I wasn't there anyhow, so I can't confirm it personally.

The physicist from whom I heard it on the radio was very excited. It seems that this knowledge brings us closer to understanding the beginnings of our universe (that's said to have happened with the “big bang” but I wasn't there either – though some of my favorite atoms may have been) and suggests a new approach to the research on the subject. He said something about directing new projects based on this knowledge – that it would open a new “window” to the exploration of that field.

I couldn't care less.

Well, maybe I could. But not much less.

I've written disapprovingly before about the amounts of money that our nation (and other nations as well) put into such research. In fact I dissed a lot of research in a variety of fields in The Golden Fleece which appeared nearly three months ago. My conclusions (they weren't stated explicitly, but I think they were obvious) were that I supported (the late) Senator Proxmire, and I questioned the wisdom of spending tax dollars – our generous if not voluntary donations to the government – on research into the answering of questions that we either don't have (especially those whose answers are so obvious – as well as questions that are so inane – that the research seems silly), or questions which will have no value for us, or any likelihood of being of of significance to our children or grandchildren – or even great-grandchildren.

I don't wish to suggest that the questions, and the benefits that research into them may provide, are totally without value. Indeed, the research provides jobs for those who participate in it, whether directly or in the manufacture of materials needed for it, and for the papers that it yields, and the benefit of it adding bulk and luster to the resumés of the researchers, contributing to their academic prestige. But even if it has neither of these consequences, for the true intellectual it satisfies his (or her) curiosity. That may have killed the cat but, as Einstein himself said,

Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.

It should be remembered, however, that Einstein's most famed work was done without the help of academia or government. He tried “to comprehend a little of this mystery” without having others pay for his doing so. His “annus mirabilis” occurred in 1905, when he was working as a patent clerk. (It was a government job, but the government contributed in no way to his research. The credit for his discoveries is entirely his.)

We spend large amounts of money on research. People are homeless, starving, and in need of medical care. (The role of taxpayers in what once were charitable endeavors is a separate subject, which I have addressed in the past and likely will again in the future.) Yet we spend money to determine what happened a billion years ago or will happen a billion years from now (if our universe lasts that long). And we send spacecraft and telescopes to explore inhospitable worlds we will never visit. Or we explore earthly matters which may be interesting to the researcher but are of no value to the rest of us, whose taxes support their interests, thoughts, and endeavors.

There is no minimizing of the value of curiosity. It is more difficult, however, to justify the use of limited resources – resources that could be applied to the solution of current problems – for the purpose of simply satisfying someone's curiosity. In academia it's called “pure” research, and revered for its purity. The curious are answering questions without regard to any practical use for the information they acquire. Perhaps someday someone will find a use for it, but that isn't really relevant to what they're doing. They'll do it anyway.

In the meantime, however, it is valid to question whether taxpayers should be supporting such curiosity of those who could use their intellects to solve existing, rather than theoretical problems. The greatest value of research is in the solution of problems that exist today – not in those we may, or may not, discover tomorrow. If our resources are limited, it makes the most sense to devote them to problems we face now, not to what our descendents may find in the future.

More importantly, in a world that has more problems than it can afford to solve, we have to get the biggest bang we can from the buck.

Entitlements Of The Rich

If you've been reading these essays you know that I'm opposed to the use of tax money to provide entitlements to the underprivileged. It's not that I'm opposed to helping the needy and the burdened, but I have other views about how this support should be obtained. Some of my thoughts can be read in earlier efforts. For a start, try “Giving And Receiving,” (October 24^th, 2010) and parts one and two of “You Get What You Pay For?” (August 7^th and 14^th in 2011). In short, I decried the use of tax money as the source of such aid.

My ideas were not new: those who pay taxes should not be forced to give “charity.” However important the goal, obligatory payment is not charity. And that's just what “entitlements” are. Whether as welfare, food stamps, free medical care, “negative tax,” shelters and other housing, or whatever, they reflect the use of tax money for charity, and represent a shift of American values. Perhaps it was a “necessary” shift, but we ought not sugar-coat the change. There was a time in our history when Americans were fiercely independent. The “pioneer spirit” dictated people's behavior. They viewed it as their responsibility to make a living and fend for themselves. If that wasn't possible where they were, they moved somewhere else.

But to understand our actions it is necessary to understand the terminology. What does “underprivileged” mean? What does “burdened” mean? What does “needy” mean? Think about it.  Maybe I'll cover it more fully some time. 

The Progressive Era – and especially actions intended to end the depression – marked a new approach to the situation. Although those actions were, by and large, unsuccessful, and it took World War II to spur economic growth, the legislation of the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration, and expansions of it since, have created a society in which the government has undertaken to provide for the needy. Employment increased, at least for bureaucrats, civil servants, and “experts.” But the fiercely independent became the frighteningly dependent.

Many years ago I read an article that addressed this kind of situation. As I remember (and it's been decades, but even if I have some of the facts incorrect this retelling illustrates the point) it was published a few years after World War II and was framed as a narrator educating an ex-serviceman. The former soldier was complaining about how he had to work for a living while others were getting welfare – a “ free ride” at his expense. I don't remember the specifics at the time (it was several decades ago) but it included benefits for food and shelter and for the kids and for medical care and more. And it was paid for out of taxes.

The one who was complaining was really angered by what he considered an injustice until the narrator, the voice of reason, pointed out to him that he, too, received welfare. After all, he had received an education through the “GI Bill of Rights,” he benefited from road construction he was entitled to Social Security, he got veterans' medical care, was protected by the military, the police, and fire fighters, the cushion of unemployment insurance, as well as the gains received from the various governmental agencies and from research of all kinds which the government supported. All the wiser for the points made to him, his position softened regarding the use of public funds to “promote the general welfare,” as the Constitution promises us. The soldier was convinced.

As a liberal, I was heartened by the statement, and all doubts that I had – and I did have a few – faded. Those who complained about the support the poor were getting were either mean-spirited or hypocrites. Or both. And while the benefits to the underprivileged have increased over the years – and to the privileged as well – the arguments are the same, and most Americans condemn our government's failure to make the problems disappear. The haves want more, and they would deny the needs of the have-nots.

The answer was obvious. Justice and basic fairness demanded more assistance from taxes for those who were poor. So I forgot about the problem, leaving the government to address it. But over time it resurfaced, along with the doubts I had. And now, the more I think about it the more I realize that the narrator's sophistry might have been filled with convincing rhetorical flourishes, but it lacked substance. It was misleading, and I was misled.

The basic flaw of the argument is that the “privileged” pay taxes and the “underprivileged” do not. The serviceman in the essay about which I spoke earned the benefits he received, or paid for them in his taxes. The “needy” receive the benefits they get – and they're eligible for the ones provided for the “mean-spirited hypocrites,” even if those who pay taxes are not entitled to welfare or “negative income tax.” It's a system of income redistribution. Those who pay taxes are supporting those who don't pay. Winners lose and losers win.

That's not to say that I envy the needy or would voluntarily change places with them – I wouldn't – but it alters my perspective regarding the way we deal with the problem of poverty. It made me consider the definitions of “privileged” and “underprivileged,” of “poor” and “entitled.” And it made me wonder whether our current policies encourage some of the poor to remain so, or to find ways to convince government agencies that they're in need of help. (I also wonder if members of unions – governmental and other – who receive disability or large pensions while they take other jobs, aren't also “playing” the system.) One conclusion is that the way we are using money to try to solve the problem doesn't work. Like farm subsidies, using money to support those who don't pay taxes, or who don't produce, doesn't encourage work and production. If we're determined to redistribute taxpayer money, we should do it more intelligently and in a way that might decrease the temptation to take rather than earn. And it might increase the temptation to become taxpayers rather than depend on them.

How might that be done? Let me suggest one possible tax code change which could also motivate improved job performance and productivity among lower salaried employees – the ones most likely to be taking advantage of unearned government benefits. Contrary to every principle we've been taught, rather than a graduated income tax we ought to consider one for lower incomes that decreases as earnings go up, so there's an incentive to earn more. There might be a plateau at some particular rate, or an eventual increase to the level of a plateau, with a flat or graduated tax beyond that, but for individuals with lower incomes there would be a good reason to try to increase (and report) them. That would also lower the need for entitlements and for the agencies that administer them.

Providing more day care and care for the disabled would increase the number of salaried positions and would free more people for work. Tax benefits for families that stay together would encourage that practice and allow families in which parental care of the children is desired to be able to offer it. If our schools pay bounties to students who are improving, and many do, we can offer bounties for improving family life.

Lowering entitlement payments as time went by might also be tried. Perhaps it would spur some to try harder to gain employment. Private enterprise could be “bribed” to provide jobs for the unemployed at a higher “minimum wage,” increasing tax revenues and the number of jobs while tempering the cost to the employers. There will, by the way, still be entrepreneurs and others with high earnings, since they'll want more and put in the effort and expertise to earn it, and everyone will benefit from their creativity in the formation of new products, industries.

We should also use some of our taxpayers' money to improve our educational system, starting with districts that can afford the least per student. It should emphasize the new skills that are anticipated. It can be viewed as the beginning of the rising tide that lifts all boats – a kind of trickle-up economics.

Charitable institutions would take much of the burden off the government. There are inducements already in our tax codes, and new mechanisms can be written into it, to encourage individuals to give to charities, and charities to provide additional services. Right now we make charities tax exempt. Perhaps they should be considered for some kind of negative tax. Although individuals should not be obligated to give charity, those who do should be aided.

I suspect there are numerous other ways to increase our tax base – both in terms of industries and employed individuals. But simply distributing tax money to the poor isn't the solution. We have to try something new.

The Golden Fleece

Thirty or forty years ago – I can't remember precisely because memory and other things go as we age – Senator Proxmire initiated his Golden Fleece Awards. Perhaps it was primarily a publicity gimmick – it certainly attracted a lot of media attention – but he maintained that it was designed to showcase governmental wasting of taxpayer money. And it did that, too. Although there were others (eg the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, and many more) an important source or waste, he felt, was in the area of scientific research. So he “honored” the authors of papers on many important subjects who had received grants from, among other agencies, the National Institute for Mental Health and the Department of Education, for their groundbreaking work. As the Senator put it when discussing one of the studies,

I object to this not only because no one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn't get an answer that anyone would believe. I'm also against it because I don't want the answer.

I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don't want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.

The media also took note of the awards. A story published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune on August 22, 1975, supplied by the N.Y. Times News Service, and printed under the headline “Stewardesses' Shape Survey Just One Big Bust To Proxmire,” states

WASHINGTON – Uncle Sam has been measuring airline trainees' bosoms, buttocks – and who knows what all else at a cost of $57,800.

It's all supposed to be in the interest of safety, of course. But it caused Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. – the man who in March discovered a $465,000 federal study on why folks fall in love and called it an “erotic curiosity” – to fly off the handle again. ...

It's important to know that the value of money has gone up nearly four and a half times since 1975, so the latter grant, if made in in 2015, would be $2,118,500. Ya' gotta' love it.

Lest you question the significance of the projects he cited, here are a few listed by Wikipedia. (Don't forget that the amounts listed would be greater in 2015 dollars.)

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded project for $121,000, on developing "some objective evidence concerning marijuana's effect on sexual arousal by exposing groups of male pot-smokers to pornographic films and measuring their responses by means of sensors attached to their penises.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila to those that drink gin.
• National Institute For Mental Health (NIMH) for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, what went on in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy.
• Office of Education for spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television.
• United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire Sauce.
• United States Department of Commerce (Economic Development Administration) for spending $500,000 to build a 10-story replica of the Great Pyramid in Bedford, Indiana. Begun in 1979, the money proved insufficient and the site is currently abandoned.
• United States Department of Defense for a $3,000 study to determine if people in the military should carry umbrellas in the rain.
• United States Department of Justice for conducting a study on why prisoners want to escape.

Why do I bring this all up? It's because I'm one of the subjects in a study of mobility in aging funded (with our tax money) by the National Institute of Health. I just received a holiday newsletter from the program informing me that “... the study is currently in its 5^th year. We measure brain activity and walking at the same time. Our results demonstrate that both brain structure and function have an impact on mobility.” (It only took five years to figure that out.)

Who woulda' thought that the brain controls mobility. I always figured it was Orion. If I only had a brain. In medical school they taught us that we were controlled by the stars, so a study like this is certainly surprising and welcome. Indeed, the research is taking place in the same medical school, so I hope they'll update their curriculum.

Notwithstanding medical school, however, I always though that the brain had something to do with walking. I learned about it from the French Revolution. From what I understand, relatively few people who had been separated from their heads by the guillotine were able to walk after that. There are stories of chickens doing so after their heads were chopped off but that is apparently because the decapitation is too high and some of the brain remains (see http://theweek.com/speedreads/448290/why-chickens-live-heads-cut). The seminal work of ISIS, also suggests a relationship.

However even if the question is only about the effects of aging, I'm not convinced a study is needed. I, and many others, can assure the investigators that you get tired and achy and sometimes forget things. Perhaps I'm selling basic science short, but, at least in their own bragging, they don't always make a very good argument for the use of tax money. If a latter-day Proxmire were to suggest that this project was a boondoggle, I'd be hard put to defend it based on the information I have.

So why do I participate? I think I have a reason but I can't remember it. But I do know that it gives me something to do every now and then.

The Only Question

Note: This was begun a little over a year ago but I just found it on my computer. Please pardon the old news (an oxymoron, isn't it?). Also note that it was from the time I used end notes, so I'll continue with them as I finish this essay. And if the content is similar to that in one or more of my other essays, I'm sorry. I'm only conveying last year's thoughts.

I heard on the radio yesterdayⁱ that the odds on the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series in 2015 had dropped from one in forty to one in twelve. It seems that they had just spent one hundred fifty-five million dollars on a long term contract for pitcher Jon Lester and the team was expected to do far better with him on board. Ticket prices will also probably go up but I don't care. I'm a Mets fan, and I live in New York. (Anyway, an important question it raises – one for another time, though – is “What is reality?” Dealing with this situation, we all know that whatever the Cubs do they don't have a chance. They can spend all the money they want, or have – or hope to have, but a World Series win will always be out of their reach.ⁱⁱ The Mets, on the other hand, ...ⁱⁱⁱ)

(There was also a story about an asteroid that will pass within three million miles of earth^iv in 2047. The likelihood that I'll be around then is moderately low, so I'm not too worried about that either. At least not yet.)

Today's news had such important items items as these. There are other stories that have been in the news recently and they've made me think about all manner of things – some important and some of no consequence.

News reporting is supposed to raise questions. Depending on the nature of the reports the questions may be different. Variation will also relate to the perspective of the questioner. The poor, for example, ask different questions from the rich – questions sometimes echoed by their supporters, and even by people who think they are poor. The strident controversy involving the Occupy Wall Street Movement, its participants, and its spinoffs, typifies this kind of a situation. And I want to spend a little time discussing some of the issues that relate to particular groups. (But I won't bother with Wall Street. It's too much a matter of fad and fashion rather than substance. I'm more interested in controversies that are less populist-driven and will be around longer.)^v

So let me illustrate my point that different populations have different concerns and different questions by citing two controversies that seemingly involve relatively few people. At least directly. (But they really concern us all.) Both have been the sources for debate and disagreement – often vehement. They raise the a very basic question. The first deals with the right of citizens to refuse to pay for activities that they oppose. We've probably all read of instances when a citizen protested the use of his tax money for the military. He didn't believe in war – or perhaps a specific war – and chose to withhold that part of his taxes that would be credited to the Defense Department. He considered the tax a violation of his religion.

The second controversy regards the rights of individuals with gender dysphoria. At least one court has ruled that such people are entitled to use whatever rest room was most comfortable for them.^vi Their gender preference was accompanied by what was determined to be a constitutional right to express it by rest room choice.^vii

The stories are very different, and the matters that they raise as well. But there are some questions they raise that apply equally in both cases, as well as in numerous other contexts, and I shall try to discuss them. If I am successful it will become obvious that there is a single uncertainty – a single issue – which has to be considered irrespective of the scenario, if those problems are to be fully understood. And I am acutely aware of the difficulty faced. I know the question. But I don't know the answer.

Perhaps I don't know the answer because I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, but the question involves the rights of our citizens. The Constitution – specifically the Bill of Rights – guarantees us certain freedoms and protections. One is the assurance that an individual's beliefs and religious practices are outside the ambit of Congress's power to legislate or control. The meaning of that freedom, like the meaning of the entire Constitution, is the subject of many interpretations and differences of opinion. Without discussing and dissecting them, without arguing about whether the interpretation should depend upon what those who formulated it said or what (we believe) they meant, our government and our courts have taken the approach (in terms of taxes for the military) that individuals cannot decide for themselves that they will not pay for the defense of our country, even if their religion seems threatened. We similarly don't allow an atheist to opt out of taxes that fund a chaplain for Congress. And we permit tax exemptions for religious institutions. We have chosen a practical, and politically acceptable, solution to the problem. Perhaps we “understand” our position to reflect what the Founders believed and wrote, but the reality is that we “understand” the original document to say whatever we believe, notwithstanding any claim that it actually represents the intent of those who wrote it.

When it comes to gender dysphoria, however, the debate centers not on the “rights” of one group, but two, the first comprised of those who suffer from dysphoria and who wish everyone else to accept their new identity – after all, their gender is a private matter^viii – and accord it the recognition due one with a similar identity from birth. The second group includes those who believe their own rights are compromised when individuals who are unhappy with the sex into which they were born invade their privacy. The courts have adopted the position that the rights of the dysphoric take precedence over those of the euphoric. They can decide for themselves. It is hard to understand this to have been the position of the Founders since it is unlikely that they would have even given the concept any thought. Irrespective of any claims by members of the judiciary, the subject is not covered in the Constitution, no matter how you construe its words. But the bench has chosen sides and must find justification for it.

The basic uncertainty – and it will remain so for a long time – revolves around our rights as American citizens. It involves the question of beliefs, religious and otherwise. It is a basic constitutional issue. It bothered the Founders, and it was a question that they thought they had solved with the Bill of Rights. Both scenarios I have cited involve those rights and beliefs but suggest that we'll solve the questions day by day. Or, actually, they'll be decided for us.

The concept of gender dysphoria is a matter of deeper and more consequential belief than the Cubs winning a World Series, and that's saying something. People hope and pray for the Cubs. But they know that the ultimate outcome is out of their control. Not so those unhappy with their physiognomy, who prefer to take their beliefs and their sex into their own hands.

I        December 10, 2014.

ii       Actually the Cubs did pretty well last season. In fact they nearly made it to the World Series. “Nearly,” of course is the key word, and their failure to “close the deal” typifies their fate. “Wait 'til next year?” Don't bother. It won't help.

iii      Alright. They didn't win either. But they got closer.

iv      From an astronomical point of view that's apparently a “near-miss.” Actually it sounds to me more like a “near hit.”

v        It's a year later and I haven't heard much about it recently. People are protesting other things nowadays.

vi  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maine-high-court-orders-school-to-open-girls-restrooms-to-transgendered-boy

vii      More cases have been litigated subsequently with varied results.

viii     “Privacy,” though not ever found in the Constitution, is “understood” to be there by a majority of the Supreme Court. It is a Constitutional right. They are what they believe themselves to be.

Give 'Til It Hurts

President Obama will give his State of the Union address later today, but he's been advertising its themes on social media and in speeches for several days. He will propose a variety of programs and benefits aimed at propping up the middle-class and the poor. The purpose of his proposals, we are told, is to set his agenda for the coming years and to initiate action so that we will know it, as will Congress, with which, he asserts, he is ready to work.

For the first time in many years both houses of Congress are Republican. The likelihood of passage of these measures is minimal – especially since his plan for funding them is to increase taxes on the “rich.” Remembering the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the demands of large parts of our population for more benefits and entitlements, and the threats of action by unions around the country, it cannot be denied that there is a pervasive feeling that American society is divided between the few who are rich and the many who are struggling at best, or flat out poor. The number of voters who feel put-upon is huge.

As far as cooperation with Congress, he has already threatened to veto several measures which as yet aren't even on the table. His vow to work with the Republicans, therefore, is one which many people question. The agenda he is proposing seems to be both the beginnings of a platform for 2016 and a populist heritage which the President would like to leave for the history books. It seems likely that he has neither the possibility nor the anticipation of accomplishing what he states to be his agenda, and that of the Democratic Party, but it appears to be aimed at getting votes in the next election.

Raising the stakes is Oxfam, which announced yesterday that the “Richest 1 Percent [around the world] Will Dominate Wealth Next Year.”ⁱ The problem of income inequity is international. Not only are we concerned about the one percent and the ninety-nine percent in the United States, but it is a problem everywhere.

In the article announcing the sitution, it was noted that “More than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.” That's $456.25 per year. In addition to other amenities which the President receives,ⁱⁱ both during and following his service, he gets a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.^iii,iv In terms of the global one percent with which Oxfam is concerned, the President is certainly a member.^v

And so are all those in Congress, for their base salary is $174,000 annually. Add in all the sports and entertainment personalities who earn far more than the rest of us.

But speaking of “the rest of us,” it's worth mention that the majority of all Americans are members of the international one percent^vi so, in Oxfam's view, we're part of the problem. And if the “rich” of America should be taxed to pay for support of our own poor, it is reasonable to wonder to what degree the United States is responsible for ameliorating the world's poverty. Should the programs which we seek for ourselves be offered on an equal basis to all the people on earth? Should that be part of our heritage?

But there is more. There is an important, if undiscussed aspect of this situation which should be considered before we fund our own programs and spread our resources around the world. What will it accomplish? Can we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide housing for the homeless, or is all we're doing punishing those who have more than we do? Might we anticipate other negative effects of such policies: whether the impoverishment of our own people – the poor as well as the rich – or the removal of the stimulus to succeed? Some – Conservatives of course – question whether taxing the rich will solve America's problems. Even if they're wrong, having only five percent of the world's population, it doesn't seem probable that our resources can solve everyone's problems. But we are the one percent. And if we are responsible to our own citizens, we have a similar obligation to all who share the world with us. If I have the right to decide that anyone with more than I is rich and should help me out, don't others have that right as well?

The problem is clear. There isn't enough to go around in a would of over 7.2 billion people. The solution is not obvious. As I pointed out, if we can decide that those who have more than we should share what they have with us, aren't others entitled to call upon us and our resources to support them? According to the Bible,^vii “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land; therefore I command you, saying 'You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to the poor, and to your destitute in your Land.'” Charity. It's not a very good solution since there are many who don't believe (and never will) that they have enough for themselves. But it's a solution in which each of us retains the right to decide for himself – not to have others^viii decide for him. Once people lose this right and once everyone has the “right” to decide what he needs and who will pay for it, we face the anarchy of competing demands.

It is a sad reality that short of relocating billions of people from areas in which weather conditions make them vulnerable, increasing food production, and providing sufficient industry to guarantee jobs for all – goals that are, at least for now, unattainable – we are left to rely on the hope that charity can provide some of the needs of the poor. Or we can allow others – who have their own agendas – to make all the decisions about reallocating the resources of those whom they accuse of responsibility for the world's ills.

As I noted, the solution isn't obvious. But I'm not convinced that the best way of dealing with the problem is to pander to populism.

I        © Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

ii       Lodging, food, health care, transportation, pension, security, etc.

iii      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

iv       Whether this level of compensation is justified is not for me to judge. The point is to put matters in perspective.

v        Indeed, his salary and benefits put him in the top one percent of American earners as well.

vi       Even our poverty-level income is more than eighty-seven percent of the world's population makes. See http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/ Admittedly the article comes from a Conservative publication and the numbers may be off a little. But the problem cannot be denied.

vii      Deuteronomy 15:11. The translation is from the Artscroll edition.

viii     All too often a faceless bureaucracy.