America – Land Of Enchantment

                                                                                                                       

(Another in the series of essays on balancing the budget.)

I recently had a problem with an appliance, so I did what the manual said and called the number for service. It was an “800” number so it didn't cost me anything except my time. Unfortunately the technician on the other end,ⁱ although he spoke English, had a thick accent and communication was a real problem. The tech was in Indiaⁱⁱ and the appliance company had farmed out its service. Outsourcing was far less expensive for them than hiring Americans to do the job. In fact, that procedure is quite common and saves a whole lot of money. And, as you know, in free enterprise, entrepreneurs are always looking for ways to save a buck.ⁱⁱⁱ

If outsourcing makes sense, though, isn't it time the government tried it? I don't mean in any kind of limited way, like printing our postage stamps. I have in mind outsourcing the majority of the US government. Before you dismiss this idea out of hand and make it a source of ridicule, hear me out.

One of the greatest expenses in any business or industry involves the salaried staff who perform the work. Not just their salaries, but their health care, pensions, vacations, sick time, and other fringe benefits. And they need a place to work. Usually it's an office building in an area where many of them live. That's generally an urban center with high rental scales. So that's another part of the cost of the bureaucracy – one we take on each time we establish a new set of regulations and a new bureaucracy to administer them. And, unfortunately, we do that all the time.

The buildings in which they work require maintenance staffs which adds to the expense. As do uniforms, laundry, maintenance materials, guards, and the like. Of course the employees will need conference rooms, cafeterias, toilets, and facilities to park their cars, and these will add to the rental costs.

Some learned economist will suggest that it would save money if the government built and owned the work facilities, however in addition to all of the expenses of renting, apart from the rent itself, the government would take on the cost of land and the various costs of building, including the construction crews and their expenses. And, of course, that includes fringe benefits, as well as what various groups – legitimate and otherwise – manage to skim off the top.

And the land and buildings will have to be removed from the tax roles – another of the costs of hiring people to run the government. But you have to spend money to save money. Of course you don't always save money. The government doesn't really know how to do that. That's a negative perspective though, and it's better to be positive. The government really knows how to spend money. I'm positive of that.

However our concern is saving money. And one way to do that is to outsource much of our government. There's no reason why most of our bureaucracy's charge couldn't be handled by men and women outside of our boundaries – in India, perhaps. For a single price – and with many departments we'd probably get a discount – a large amount of our work could be done without overtime costs or fringe benefits. They may not be perfect for the job – they may not know how to botch our government as well as local bureaucrats – but they'll learn. And we won't need service workers to help those employees, or buildings to house their efforts.

Certain functions would have to be retained, of course,^iv but those will primarily be those that are demanded by the Constitution, like defense^v and taxation. They're not our favorites, but our Founding Fathers gave us the responsibility for handling them.^vi They even wanted us to have governmental officials, like Representatives and Senators, however they had higher hopes for them than we do. In any case, no other country would want them, so we're stuck. I'll have more to say on that issue next week and after that I'll discuss a few other ways to save money and to enhance revenues.^vii

With the government lowering its employment roles there would be a temporary rise in the unemployment roles, but fairly soon wages would go down and private enterprise could afford to hire more workers. With lower wages, people would have to remain in their jobs longer before retiring, increasing American productivity and lowering Social Security payouts. The birth rate would also probably decrease making the cost of health care less.

And with a larger available work force we won't need to outsource as much, which will mean that more Americans will have jobs, pay taxes, and buy consumer goods. We're on our way to a healthier economy already.

[Happy Purim]

Next episode: “Go Tell It On The Mountain” – The rule of law.

i      He said his name was “Roger” but I suspect that that's not the name to which he answers when among friends. I'd guess that it's his nom de phone, imposed on him by the appliance manufacturer in the hope of convincing consumers that the service was local.

ii     Although it's not the focus of the movie, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” gives a glimpse at outsourcing.

iii    That's about 55 rupees.

iv     Delivering the mail in Keokuk would be difficult (but not necessarily impossible – see future postings) by a mail carrier in Mumbai.

v      We have the responsibility for our own defense so the military should be retained. We have, however, used mercenaries before and that possibility shouldn't be off the table.

vi     Many of our other activities were taken on by Congress or the courts because they thought it “right” (or politically expedient). The courts sometimes make up the law to suit their beliefs, even if there is no Constitutional basis for their position. Examples include Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade. Legal scholars question whether either has any basis in the Constitution, irrespective of the decision.

vii    Not just raising taxes, though that's a good start.

Paper And People

                                                                           

Many people, and that includes me, believe that the government is too big, but they fear that the solution to the problem that many in Congress will suggest will be another department, charged with the responsibility of making it smaller. And of course that will make it bigger. For example, the full title of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA of 1980 apparently didn't do the trick) was “A bill to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes.” Even the title is too long. But the real test is whether the act did its job, to which the answer is an unequivocal “Yes and No.”

Q. Doesn't the PRA cause more paperwork, not less?

A. For government employees, yes. The objective of the law is to reduce the paperwork burden on the public. The process of trying to do that adds to government paperwork.ⁱ

So, the real goal, notwithstanding the professed aim of all the politicians, is not to decrease the amount of paperwork, but only what the public sees. (That used to be called “secrecy” and was decried. Now it's an important goal of government to “help” everyone. Congress has gone out of its way to find a method by which it is unnecessary for the public to read so much of what will affect them. Perhaps the title “Paperwork Reduction Act” is misleading, but it all sounds very noble.) How can the public not respond positively in the next election to anyone who voted for an act with that name.ⁱ It's the usual disconnect between what Congress wants us all to believe, and what is reality.ⁱⁱ

An example of the results of the Paperwork Reduction Act is the universal health care initiative passed during the previous Congress, which, nominally, is aimed at lessening our health care costs and providing care for all. The act was passed long after legislation to reduce paperwork – at a time when the government should have honed its skills at succinctness – but it is quite long and consumes a large amount of paper. After extensive time, money, personnel, and paper were utilized to draft legislation, Congress passed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” In bill form they amounted to between 2,000 and 3,000 pages (I don't know the actual number) but by reformatting, the bulk was reduced to 961 pages in the printed statutes. That's 425,116 words.ⁱ

But that's only the basic framework. Implementation of the statutes requires that the specifics be spelled out with regulations since the bills only indicate the goals, and the regulations bring wonder to all who see them. They amount to over 2,800,000 words.^v To bring that into perspective, “War and Peace” is about 560,000 words long – far fewer than “Remembrance of Things Past” (1.2 million words. But the statutes and associated regulations and more than five and three quarter times the length of “War and Peace.” ^vi) It's hard to believe that all those who voted for them even read the original bills, let alone the regulations that followed. It is likely that the costs involved in writing and administering this legislation will increase paperwork, the number of bureaucrats needed to manage it, and the National Debt, while there are many questions about the ultimate effect on health care and its costs.

That long but necessary introduction aside, however, legislation like this – and while these statutes are not typical in size, they are far from unique in form – illustrates the extent of Congress's adherence to the spirit of the Paperwork Reduction Act. It demonstrates that the problem is far larger than we might have imagined.

With all of that as background then, it seems obvious that Congress is incapable of simplifying or unwilling to undertake it voluntarily, but legislators can only make things more complex and more costly. Even assuming that all of our legislation were necessary and honest – which it isn't – it can only lead to enlarging government costs. Inevitably the debt will continue to rise, as will the burden on those who follow us.

That's the way our government works. We increase costs while we need the to reduce them; we enlarge it while claiming to make the bureaucracy smaller. Increased revenues are certainly worth seeking, but until we lower the bills we're paying,^vii we won't be able to start on the long path to balance the budget no matter how much we raise.

I'll start talking about that next week.

Next episode: “And For Other Purposes” – Too big to read and too important to fail.

i      U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Human Services. An interesting choice for the responsibility to lessen paperwork and, presumably, the size of the beaurocracy charged with producing it.

See: http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/policy/collection/infocollectfaq.html

ii      Not surprisingly, it passed unanimously in both houses of Congress.

iii    More on that subject when I discuss some aspects of legislation. For the moment, note the “ ... and for other purposes” in the full title of the act.

iv     It's about ninety-two times the length of the Constitution.

v     Blaise Pascal wrote: “I apologize that this letter is so long. I did not have the time to make it short.” (The quotation has been, from time to time, attributed to others but it is generally accepted that Pascal authored it in its current form.) In the case of Congress, however, the absence of time was not the main motive, I fear, but there was an intentional desire to make the legislation unreadable, especially since some of its contents might be viewed negatively by other legislators. I suspect, as well, that Congress has neither the will nor the ability to do so.

vi    Indeed, the United States Constitution, on which our entire system of government is based, is under 4600 words in length. Of course that doesn't include the signatures of the Founders or the text of subsequent amendments. And the Declaration of Independence, by which we became a nation, is under 1400 words.

vii    In part by shortening the bills we're passing.

Fiscal Cliff Notes

                                                                                         

Well, we're still here. We dealt with a little of the taxing issue, but there's still a lot to do. We finessed on some of the major problems, leaving their solution to the new Congress, although it's not clear that they won't delay a decision and kick the can even further down the temporal road. As for the taxes, the President got nearly all he wanted even though he raised the threshold for increasesⁱ a little. But the “one percent”ⁱⁱ won't be able to pay off the National Debt.ⁱⁱⁱ Unfortunately that debt is increasing all the time, and one of the upcoming debates will center on it – its size, the need to increase it, how much, and how will we ever pay it back. And the President has vowed not to compromise on that issue.

So I've decided, in a series of essays,^iv to oversimplify^v the situation we're in and to suggest some solutions for consideration. It doesn't seem likely that any of them will be attempted since no one will read this, and I'm not going offer my brilliant ideas to politicians who have already shown their inability to do anything other than to make the hole in which we find ourselves even deeper. It's their problem and they have to solve it.^vi

In today's offering I'd like to summarize the factors that have contributed to our current dilemma – to try to figure out how we got this way. It doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner in Economics to determine that we have a problem.^vii We spend more than we have or take in. That leaves us with a debt.^viii That's not complicated. If we handled our personal finances this way the banks would have foreclosed on us long ago. It would be Chapter 11 writ large.

CHAPTER 11

Like that. There. I feel better.

But the government's credit rating is better than ours. They^ix can borrow whatever they see fit, as long as they stay within the credit limit. And if there is a threat of needing more, they can simply raise that limit or print money to pay it down. Of course the latter solution means that the value of our savings will go down since, with more money in circulation backed by the same assets, that's the inevitable result. But we won't have to do that if we raise the debt limit. That, however, means that we taxpayers will owe more. Heads you lose, tails you lose. And because raising the debt limit can go on for a long time, your losses will continue to increase.

But that can't go on forever. Greece has shown us what can happen. If you were dealing with your own assets, your creditors would have taken them from you. And that would be disastrous, but it would stop you from continuing your profligacy. You'd have to work out a way to make the balance sheet balance. The government may not have to do that^x but you do. Fortunately there are some bankruptcy laws that will help you start over, but with your credit rating damaged.

So that's the problem we must solve. And I'll offer some proposals beginning next week. They won't be in any logical order (except the first couple – sort of) – not by feasibility, not by the amount of money concerned, and certainly not by popular appeal. But the hole is deep and getting deeper, and no possibility should be overlooked.

See you around the quad.

Next episode: “Paper And People” – A start at lowering costs.

i      Actually it's the expiration of a “temporary” lowering of taxes rather than a rise from preexisting levels. Either way, it was a clear victory over the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Raising the number may have given the Republicans a way to save face, but they were clearly the losers in this fight.

ii     Full disclosure: I'm not in the one percent. Even so, I know that they can't handle our bills.

iii    Even if the number wouldn't have been changed the problem wouldn't have been solved, but this was a face-saving solution for the Republicans and, when the debt keeps increasing as it surely will, the President can blame the opposition for not giving him all he had demanded. In fact he'll be better off with a scapegoat remaining.

   

iv    I have no idea how long the series will be, or whether the essays will be consecutive. (Probably not.) I'll continue as long as I can come up with hare-brained (apologies to the Easter bunny and all his kin) ideas for dealing with our economic problems.

v     This is a version of Cliff Notes after all.

vi     In reality it's my problem. And that of every other taxpayer. We, or our descendants, will eventually have to foot the bill for our government's folly. We'll also have to pay the salaries and support the benefits packages of those who have created this situation.

vii    Nor newspaper and other political spin artists and the public who tell us that it's all the fault of the one percent (and most of them have bought lottery tickets so they can be in that group) or the rich (who only care about themselves) or the Republicans (who only care about the rich and the NRA). And everyone knows that President Bush got us into this mess.

viii   In order to have some perspective on the size of the debt, look at http://www.usdebtclock.org/ It's complex, but you'll be able to get an idea of where we are.

ix      Whoever “they” are. I usually think of the government as kind of anonymous and faceless plural. It's big enough and seemingly not answerable to anyone.

x      For the present.

Washington Arms

 

We face a fiscal crisis. Not just in the United States but in many countries around the world. So if there are problems in Europe there will be repercussions here – and vice versa. There's not much we can do about Greece or Spain. Europe, and its Economic Union, have to solve those problems and, without doubt, they're working on it. We can only hope that they're successful. Which leaves us to focus on our own situation.

The debt crisis and debt ceiling are issues that aren't as much in the news as they were a few months ago – at least in the media – but we don't seem to be any closer to a solution of those problems than we were then. So this may be a good time to review the situation and, perhaps, offer a few suggestions to improve our condition. In the absence of a method for creating real governmental wealth,^i,ii the two main mechanisms for managing the situation are the same on a national basis as they are in more modest settings – what goes out should not exceed what comes in. At least that's what used to be viewed as responsible money management.ⁱⁱⁱ So that's the route I'll follow.

First of all there's income. The vast majority of that comes from taxes of one sort or another. As is the case with any rule, some have found a way around them. There are tax breaks and benefits enjoyed by the rich – both as individuals and companies. So the first step is to eliminate those benefits. It may not help that much^iv – there aren't all that many “super rich” – but we'll all feel better if we make them suffer like everyone else.^v So the real help will have to come from the rest of us. But, as I've noted in the past, Congress has taken taxation far beyond what the Founding Fathers originally included in the Constitution, and the general population^vi will react negatively to any increased taxes.^vii Nonetheless, some nominal increase will have to be imposed – if only to demonstrate the idea of shared responsibility.

The real change though – the one that can bring us closer to a balanced budget – has to relate to the outgo rather than the income. And it is not unreasonable to look for an improvement in the lives of our citizens along with a cut in costs. We have always assumed that we can solve problems by “throwing money” at them, but perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps we can save money by solving some of the problems at which we now throw money. Here are a few suggestions.

Eliminate Congress and the Pentagon. No. Not the functions^viii but the physical plants. At least move the activities to lower cost property. In fact, with video conferencing and the ability to vote over the internet, it is difficult to imagine why members of Congress need to leave their houses at all. The savings in travel and housing should be significant, and the Representatives will have more opportunity to hear from their constituents^ix if they are at all interested. Of course that will mean an increase in costs to the lobbyists, but their employers will pass them on to consumers resulting in higher prices and a boost to the economy.

There is also no need to use expensive property in Virginia to house the military complex. The government owns lots of land in more desolate areas, and the construction of scattered buildings in various wilderness areas would improve the local economies in those places^x and make terrorist attacks more difficult. No single attack could damage more than a small part of our military facilities. Communications systems between them, like those for Congress, could be handled electronically – especially since they're probably managed that way now, with telephone calls from office to office. The scattering of generals and admirals around the country, though it may improve their safety, could provoke terrorists to attack civilians, but there are so many of them that it won't matter much.

What about those civilians? Although the Founding Fathers (and presumably the Mothers as well) didn't envision the new government taking responsibility for all their needs, entitlements are now a given. Do entitlements extend beyond Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, welfare, and the like? All of them are burdens on our economy. How can we get them working for us? Perhaps we could take the now abandoned Pentagon and Congressional Office Buildings and subdivide them into apartments for the poor and homeless. Make those buildings into taxpayers instead of drains. A lot of those who now receive disbursements from the Treasury could get jobs in the construction trades working on those buildings and wind up paying taxes. And they would eventually get places to live in central locations.^xi Another possible piece of real estate which could be used is the White House. The President, like Congress, could work from home. Think of the money we'd save. (Each of those buildings also has a lot of unused land around it and the addition of more apartments would be a great benefit in all the ways already mentioned. Land developers would have a field day.) The prestige of the locations would encourage bidding for the apartments newly available and may even result in their being turned into condos.^xii The Pentagon could be renamed “The Washington Arms,” the Senate and House of Representatives might be relabeled “Congressional Alms,” and the White House, well the White House would certainly keep its old name.

Social Security is also very costly. We talk about increasing the age necessary to receive benefits but there are too many opposed to such an action. And rightly so. All it does is increase the number of working years, resulting in increased competition for jobs and a high rate of unemployment. We'd be better served if we lowered retirement age, paring back the payments if necessary. It might be necessary to increase the Social Security levy in order to do so, but people would probably be willing to pay to retire early. That would make more jobs available for the unemployed and increase tax revenues. And it would cut the costs of unemployment payments, food stamps, and welfare. Many of those unemployed could probably be trained to be medical providers and, even with limited training, they could provide many of the services now offered by doctors through Medicaid and Medicare, at lower cost. If the medical care they receive isn't very good and they die young, all the better – at least in terms of costs. We spend too much trying to make people better. Rationed care, as is offered in many other countries, would save us a lot.

Another big cost is that for defense. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if we built up our supply of armaments and then used them to destroy everyone else. Savings would be significant if we no longer had to send troops to protect other countries – and we wouldn't have to do so if we had destroyed our enemies, and our friends no longer existed. It would not be necessary to spend the huge costs of weapons development and maintenance of personnel. We could decrease the size of our armed forces. That would mean the addition of many to the work force, but they could be employed rebuilding the countries we destroyed. Costs would be paid out of the resources of those countries, resources that would now be ours. And once some of those countries reconstituted themselves, we could rent them our military as mercenaries. It would be to naïve to suggest that we would no longer need a military, but its size, and the expenses it incurs, could certainly be reduced.

There are certain means available to the government that might be used to increase revenue – apart from taxation. The first step I'd take is the nationalization of the paper industry. Irrespective of computer advances, the government is addicted to paper printouts of everything. And that's a lot. All Congress has to do is to authorize a department to regulate something and there are certain to be thousands of pages of regulations resulting. When they are printed, with thousands of copies required, a lot of paper has been consumed. Since there is no end to what Congress can regulate, there is no end to our need for paper. Why pay for it when we can own it? And while we're at it, we should be regulating private industry and selling them the thousands of pages of regulations we print.

Private industry would also be a likely target for the sale of government information – no, not the material we label as secret to hide mistakes and mismanagement, but census information which would be useful to marketers. And we should take the DNA of every newborn and naturalized citizen both for our own use and for sale. Sale of excess government land and National Parks would also bring in a great deal of money. We're only hoarding it for a bunch of well-off hikers.

Another big problem we can solve while saving money is that of hunger. If Congress feels the need to give special subsidies to the agricultural giants that are fixing prices and impoverishing all of us, they could be made to provide food for the poor so the government doesn't have to do so. Of course that means that our prices will be higher, but we won't be able to blame it on taxes – only on those giant corporations, and they don't care what we think anyway. In an analogous way, gasoline companies might be required to provide fuel for government vehicles. That would save a lot of money when it comes to the Federal budget. It may hit our personal budgets when we pay higher prices for gas, but we have to drive so we'll continue to do so.

Anyway, that's a start. I'm sure there are other steps we can take to control our debt. At least the public debt if not our private ones. Modern times offer us modern opportunities.

 

Next episode: “F U cn rd ths …” – If you can't, go back to prehistoric times.

 

 

i     Not just printing more money.

ii    There are some, however, and I'll offer some suggestions presently.

iii    It is hard to deny that not everyone accepts this formulation. There are many who contend that borrowing to invest in the future is the only way to strengthen the economy. The fourteen and a half trillion dollar debt we've amassed should not be viewed as in any way negating this philosophy. All we need to do to get out of the mess we're in is to double down. Or, at least, up the ante.

iv    A letter to the New York Times dated August 17, 2011 states: “The Internal Revenue Service's own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 million, which would barely make a dent in the nation's multitrillion dollar annual budget.” And, of course, no one is proposing a tax rate that high – even for (or against, depending on your perspective) the rich.

v     In fact, they should suffer even more than we do. They can afford it.

vi     Not to mention the Republicans.

vii    Many view the disbursement of “entitlements” as charity which, however meritorious, should be a private matter, not a public one. Individuals should not be forced to give charity. But such a parsimonious attitude doesn't deserve consideration. Of course taxpayers should be required to pick up the tab to ensure equality.

viii    And of course not their “perqs” and benefits, which they get directly and in the form of inside information on which they can act before it becomes public. And the valuable inducements they receive from lobbyists and others eager to earn their favor.

ix    Original discussions of the Constitution placed representation at no more than one Representative per 30 thousand constituents (a number some viewed as too high). It's about one per 718 thousand now. If we can't increase representation, perhaps we can get our “Representatives” closer to us.

x     It's likely that new communities would rise around the new office buildings, and land developers would be quick to build additional homes, malls, and offices there. That would require, among other things, more transportation facilities, cell phone towers, energy sources (green), and roads. A building boom with lots of jobs is certain to result.

xi    Alternatively they could be moved to other government land where they could get forty acres and a used car. We need more farmers, though multinational corporations are doing very well (for their stockholders) in that regard. They would probably buy the land given to the homesteaders and thus enrich them. But only someone who is biased would believe that the poor are not as entitled as we to live in prime locations. And they may not wish to be farmers. They may prefer to be politicians. However the more spread out the politicians are, the better.

xii     And if the bidding gets too high because those who are better off want those addresses, the spaces they leave would probably become available at reasonable prices for the poor.

Tea For Who(m)

 

Let's start with the easy part. Not to mince words, in my view the Tea Party must accept responsibility for our current debt crisis.ⁱ But no service is performed if we overlook the involvement of the Republican Party as a whole.ⁱⁱ And the President and Democrats as well. They all bear some of the blame for the situation. And so do we.

However threatening the issue may be, it reflects the major problem of our political system. The same situation seems to involve all legislation. Our current system often seems incapable of achievement because our politicians are incapable of compromise. There's too much of a “my way or the highway” mentality. Selfishness rules.

Why do people run for office? Why do they vote on legislation as they do? It's not very complicated. There are only four real reasons. The first two are the critical issues for someone considering candidacy: ego and self-gain. But with those two in the background, there are two others which govern day-to-day voting. They are personal beliefs and, more important, concern over the views of supporters. Politicians are always looking to the next election. Only by being elected can they satisfy their egos and fill their pockets. Perhaps that's a cynical point of view, but it's hard to find exceptions to this rule.

I don't know if the problem will be solved by the deadline, but right now we face a fiscal crisis – the possibility that our nation will default on its debts.ⁱⁱⁱ I don't really expect that to happen,^iv but there is no question that the major news of the day is the dispute over raising the debt ceiling, paying off what we owe, the cost of programs we have established, and the financial obligation that we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

We're all responsible for the situation. Groups that are receiving entitlements^v demand that the payments they receive be increased; various professional groups^vi who insist that theirs is the last that should be cut since the job they perform is critical to keeping our economy intact and to keeping our citizens served properly; taxpayers complain that the government is taking too large a part of their earnings; lobbyists are making sure that their clients benefit from whatever legislation comes about; and everyone complains that prices – especially gas – are too high.

People want what they don't have. It doesn't always matter if their wants are justified. It may be reasonably argued that the Tea Party is taking its “mandate” too far, but apart from their own perspective, they are espousing what they believe the voters' viewpoint to be. After all, they want to be reelected. As do their opponents. So everyone is acting in a pig-headed manner to demonstrate their willingness to fight for what they claim the voters want. Those who support their position see it as virtuous; those who oppose it consider it the embodiment of evil.

But everyone agrees that some accommodation must be reached. Principles are important, however they cannot be allowed to prevent any movement from taking place. It's better to pass a measure that satisfies only some of our aims than to place ideals above action. We can try to change it later, but an incomplete solution is better than none at all.

Compromise. After that we can renew the fight.

 

i     The doctrinaire, at least those who read this, are likely to focus on this sentence and not read further. Certainly the liberals will see it as confirmation of their own view. But things are not as clear as we'd like to believe.

ii    See the first note. But also read the next sentence. And further.

iii    The employment and housing crises are a severe backdrop to the budget debate. They are not to be minimized, but they are not the subject of this essay.

iv    Although as time passes I become less and less confident.

v     And this includes the rich who are getting a variety of benefits through loopholes, special legislation, and the like.

vi    For example teachers, road builders, and health care workers. But those are only examples.