Time Out

Today is January 12^th (2015). I just realized that the essay I wrote for February 15^th is listed by Blogspot as the 300^th that I've written, so I thought I'd interrupt the regular flow and take a look at where I stand.ⁱ Actually the number may turn out to be a little higher if I throw in any extra essays in the next few weeks because of breaking news, but the purpose of this reassessment will remain the same.

I've looked at some of the previous efforts and one thing is obvious – I repeat myself. I know I've delivered that message before, but it's worth repeating. I've also explained why the repetition comes about, so I won't belabor that issue – only warn you that it's certain to happen again.ⁱⁱ That's fine, though. I spent much of my life teaching and one thing that's clear is that if something is worth saying, it's worth repeating.ⁱⁱⁱ And with some students it's especially necessary to do so, over and over. So I hope you'll forgive me if I restate some of the points I've made before, but if you don't forgive me I can live with it.

The world is changing. Rapidly. And the change constitutes a challenge. On a content level, the new developments that appear daily provide a lot of grist for me. Blogs, themselves, are a product of the computer era, so I started with that kind of technology, but since I began this series we have seen the explosion of the social media and the propagation of hand-held devices.^iv Needless to say,^v I'm appalled by the trends. One of the biggest problems of modern society is that there is too much communication. I have an old hand-me-down “flip phone” which my wife gave me after she got a new one. She makes me take it with me when I go on a long car trip. It's there, in my glove compartment, so that I'll be able to call for help if I should need it. I take it with me in order to maintain family peace, but I'm not sure I'd know how to use it if that ever became an issue.

Of course my antipathy makes it virtually certain that I'll never make a call while driving, and if someone called me^vi I wouldn't know how to answer, so there's little likelihood that I'd even bother trying. I'll certainly never text – whether or not I'm driving. The phone is old and neither it, nor I, has the ability to do so. If it were so equipped, and if it had “apps,” I wouldn't even take it with me for emergencies. I'd be too intimidated.

I'm a remnant of the past. I remember the maps that were available free at all gas stations when I was growing up. Spread out in front of me I could see where I had been and where I was going, and have the pleasure of planning a trip that included all the places I wanted to see.^vii Ridiculously priced atlases then became available but they're virtually gone from the market, having been replaced by GPS's. With the cost of those devices and the telephone/satellite systems needed for updating and for reports of accidents and construction and the ways around them there's no end to the costs, added to the waste of time that these devices provide.^viii In addition, it's hard to ignore the distraction of the screen, the annoying back-seat-driver voice coming from it, and the certain knowledge that “they” always know where I am.

Politics and the state of the world are also much more complicated than when I was young. As useless as they were, the fire drills and “duck and cover” exercises gave us the feeling^ix that we had some control over our lives and fates. Now we leave that all to the government and we complain about the way they do it. We're not responsible for anything now – whatever goes wrong is someone else's fault.

Our general culture is also deteriorating rapidly. Television reflects it, but our fellow citizens, those who claim to be not responsible – thus those who are irresponsible – are dictating what we see. Sex of all varieties is one of the driving forces. And what is portrayed on the 60 inch screen illustrates the fantasy lives we should all be leading. The “reality” shows let us see what we're supposed to believe is really happening all around us. At least the advertisers benefit from all of this.

These are some of the subjects I've been thinking about over recent years. As well as politics, religion, aging, and all of the other things that control our lives. As I get older, and as conditions around me change, my views of all of these subjects evolve. So when they do, or when I think of something I shoulda said last time, I have a subject for a new essay. It's not important that I've visited the issue before. There's something else I want to say. Perhaps it's not original,^x but I need to incorporate it into my own formulation of whatever the subject is. Which means that I write about it again. As well as some subjects that are different. (Actually I'll mention some of those subjects next week in “Nota Bene 3” – my list keeps getting longer. “Ice Breaker,” originally scheduled for today, will appear the following week.)

But none of that matters. If you haven't read them before, the chances that you'll catch up with the 300 are small. It will take ten months if you read one each day. But if you do, start at the beginning and you'll see how my thoughts, and style (what little there is), progress. You'll agree that even though I'm not a Member of Congress^xi and even though I'm not an idiot^xii I repeat myself.^xiii Ever the twain shall meet.

I        Sit.

ii       Actually it will be here today. I lied. I will belabor it.

iii      Indeed, the repetition is a necessary component of the teaching process.

iv       “Progress” related to the equipment rather than the content.

v        But I'll say it anyway.

vi      It hasn't happened yet and there's no reason to anticipate that it will in the future.

vii     Folding up the map when I was done was nearly impossible, but trying was a lot of fun.

viii    I save time by following the directions my wife gives me. They're usually more accurate than the ones that the disembodied voice gives, and they're usually better tailored to the way I understand instructions.

ix       It was wrong but we didn't know that.

x        And it can't be denied that there is nothing new under the sun.

xi       Objective fact.

xii      That's my view, which, as I've often stressed, is true.

xiii    “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain, a Biography

Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above

The earth is flat.

For many millennia that was a perfectly rational statement – even if we reject it now. All you had to do was look and you'd see it for yourself. And anyone who claimed otherwise was irrational.

Religion is irrational.

That's certainly a rational statement. And anyone who claims otherwise is, himself, irrational. However that wasn't always the case.

The problem is that “irrational” has different meanings – denotations and connotations. It derives from the Latin, and means lacking reason, with “reason” having the sense of measurable “fact.” Nowadays its use is primarily pejorative, indicating that the irrational person or concept not only lacks the support of what is provable, but is inherently ridiculous. It's not only without reason – fact – but it is unreasonable. Religion is bunk.

That which is rational, on the other hand, is demonstrable, measurable, and provable. The earth is spherical. It was provable before the space age and demonstrable after. It isn't flat. That's a fact, and always has been. It's just that it took time for science to establish this reality and educate the rest of us.

Rationality is a human creation. And “facts” change with time. Something is true either because we can see it for ourselves, or someone we trust says it is. So if, several hundred years ago, you maintained that when flammable substances burned they became heavier because the source of flammability, phlogiston – which is lighter than air – was burned off, your claim was a fact. If you contend today, however, that for materials that have been heated there is no such thing as gravity, only phlogiston, your position would be viewed as irrational. Laughable. Even stupid. It is clearly contrary to demonstrable evidence, and in addition we have both physical and mathematical proof that gravity is real.

Facts, then, are what we believe at some point in time. And anyone with a contrary view is irrational. He may be right in the long run, but that is of no consequence. Those who are intelligent will consider his views to be irrational or, at best, unproven. If they, "those who are intelligent," respect the speaker, or choose to believe that the statements agree with their own views, they will state that the ideas, although not yet proven, are perfectly reasonable. If they don't, if they consider the ideas to be in conflict with their own beliefs,ⁱ they are prone to label them as mythology or superstition.

There was a time when the four elementsⁱⁱ and the humorsⁱⁱⁱ were established facts; when alchemy was a respected field; when the earth was the center of the Universe. Now we know better. Or, better, now we know more. And now we recognize that there is still a lot that we don't know. It's not unknowable, but we're not there yet. Some day it will be, for science is all about determining the facts of Life, the Universe and Everything. And, if it's real, whatever it is, sooner or later science will discover it.

However there are also things we don't know not because we haven't figured them out yet, but because they're nonsense. They're irrational. Religion is like that. If it doesn't agree with science, and we cannot imagine that it ever will, it is irrational. Of course we've changed our views of facts in the past, and we may do so again in the future, but that is only because science and wisdom can be trusted to help us work out the details. 

There are many things about which science and religion agree. Both will accept the idea that there are some things that are unknown and others that are unknowable. But while scientists will dismiss anything unknowable as irrational,^iv and while they'll accept anything that happens as fact – neither right or wrong, simply “what is” – those who believe in organized religion,^v whatever that religion is, accept the idea that there are moral absolutes and they have been established by an unknowable divinity. We are wrong when we blindly accept “reality” and ignore its implications. Man is not the measure of all things. There are some things we'll never understand because we're not intended to. It is only hubris that gives some the confidence that everything is knowable by Man.

Religious people make a mistake when they try to show that what they believe is compatible with scientific principles. That position gives credence to the view that for something to be true it must conform to those principles. It is a denial of the idea that there is more to our existence than what we consider “rational.” It is acquiescence to the belittling of religion by some scientists, and the blessing of the pejorative understanding of “irrational.”

Those who dismiss what they consider irrational because they cannot understand it, cannot understand the fact that what is provable is only a small part of reality, and it is inferior to that which cannot be known. It's their loss. Their world is flat.

Next episode: “Ice Breaker” – Oil and water don't mix.

i        Prejudices?

ii       Air, earth, fire, and water.

iii      Black bile, yellow bile, blood, and phlegm.

iv       Silly and superstitious. The crutch of the weak.

v        As contrasted with those who believe in the infallibility of science.

Six Of One

According to chaos theory, a small action may have large effects in this slavishly deterministic universe. One thing invariably leads into another. It's called the “butterfly effect.” The effects may not be desired, but they are predictable.

According to another scientific field – quantum physics – events can only be described in terms of probability. An individual occurrence is unpredictable, but as a whole you can predict events since you have statistics on your side. That's “randomness.”

If we follow the implications of Heisinger's view, however, we can't really know what is happening anyway, since observing or measuring something changes it. We know that truth as the “uncertainty principle.”

So what should we accept? Are things determined or random? Yes. Are they probable or unpredictable? Yes. Do we know what's happening or don't we? Yes. And you're right, too. Schrödinger's cat is alive and Schrödinger's cat is dead.

That's the beauty of science. Everything can be proved. Even if the things it proves contradict each other. Both must be true.

In addition there's no need to decide what is morally or ethically right, and what is wrong. Consequently societal biases are irrelevant. There can be no such thing as a cultural norm in such a system. “Belief” is not an issue in it. There are only absolutes. All that science does is to tell us what is. So now we know. Science is rational, and all rational beings should accept it.

While there are differences – and oft times violent disagreements and arguments – science is very much like religion. Religion, too, rejects the idea of cultural norms in favor of absolutes. Perhaps they are not the same absolutes that scientists promote, but the principle is the same. As is the view of Heisenberg. He maintained that we could neither know nor measure everything. Once again, while the reasons for the idea differ, both science and religion recognize that some things are unknowable.ⁱ

And notwithstanding the claim that belief is not an issue, many of those who reject religion in favor of science – who deem religion “irrational” – accept science with a zeal well beyond that of many who follow religious precepts. But the ideas they accept are also counter-intuitive. From their perspective, creatio ex nihilo isn't rational, but the “Big Bang,” a “singularity,” is perfectly reasonable as an explanation for the Universe; an eternal deity is mythology, but eternal laws of physics make complete sense; and the creation of time and space by G-d should be replaced by the concept of an eternal cosmos.

Another problem of science – at least for amateurs like me – is the idea that the fastest possible speed is the speed of light. Estimates of the size of the universe far exceed what would be expected if expansion were at light speed. It has been hypothesized that there was a period of “inflation” of the universe very early in the first second that followed the Big Bang. In that extraordinarily short period of time the speed limitation obviously didn't exist. Which means that the laws of physics are not immutable.

The contention that science is rational and religion irrational is difficult for me to credit. That, of course, is my problem, but understanding “rational” to mean logical, reasonable, and consistent, while “irrational” means the opposite, itself seems inconsistent with the arguments presented. From my perspective – and I accept the idea that I lack information and do not understand all the issues involved – both concepts are extra-rational. And both those who believe in science and religion will admit that there are many things they don't understand.

But there is a difference. For those who accept religious doctrine, there is much that is unknowable, except to G-d, and it is our function to follow what He teaches us. For those who believe in the religion of science, there is only that which is not yet known. It will eventually be explained by them or their descendants. There will be a time when they know everything. A general theory of everything will be proposed and found to be correct, and there will be nothing we don't know.ⁱⁱ But I don't expect that to happen. Science will absorb a significant portion of the taxes we pay in the search for answers, answers they are certain exist.

In the meantime however – and I believe that will be forever (whatever that means) – the idea of a Creator makes at least as much sense as anything the scientists have to offer. It's as rational as anything they have to offer.

Or as irrational.

Next episode: “Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above” – Or maybe something else.

I        Actually, that's probably an overstatement. Science would maintain that there is nothing that is unknowable, even if there are many things that are unknown. The problem, however, is that since we don't know what we don't know, it is, at least for now, unknowable. Of course we don't know if that's true. (Only the Shadow knows – even if it's not evil.)

ii       See note #i. In truth, I already know everything. But I'm not telling.

What To Do When The Envelope Pushes Back

“We've always done it that way.”

That was the reaction I faced when I introduced a new dictation system to replace the existing practice into my department back in the mid 1980s. It was a voice-activated systemⁱ that could produce x-ray reports immediately without the delays resulting from sending out magnetic tapes to a transcribing service.ⁱⁱ Some people were averse to doing anything that required computers,ⁱⁱⁱ or didn't want to learn anything different from what they were doing. Whether because of laziness or fear however, whatever the reason, there were some who resisted the change. Fortunately I had the authority to implement the new procedure over their objections. And the hospital administration was enthusiastic about the new system because it would save money, and because they wouldn't have to participate in the changes. Except, of course, the savings.

Innovation isn't always easy. But it sometimes makes things better. Build a better mousetrap, and all that. However, while we may demand rapid, if not well thought out, change when there is some well-publicized or stylish problem or disease, we're most ready for such change when neither the problem nor the solution affects us directly; when someone else will have to deal with what we're doing for him. And we want immediate action. If there are unanticipated consequences we can deal with them by introducing a new change. If that doesn't work we can try again. But we can't leave things the way they are.

And not just any change will do. We have to push the envelope; we have to think outside the box. If we're told that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, we know that that it's not always a wheel we want. We have to be creative if we're going to solve the problem.

The usual response of those who are wedded to the present is “What problem?” “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” And, all too often, they're right. Our society is in a headlong rush to act. We celebrate change whether it solves an existing problem or not. “Don't just stand there, do something.” It doesn't matter what the change is, or whether it's likely to work, action is needed. In too many cases, however, the cure is worse than the disease, and the unintended consequences cause bigger problems than the ones they were designed to address.^iv But, as I noted, we can deal with those problems when we see what they are.^v In the meantime we've demonstrated our sensitivity to the underlying situation.^vi

Change, itself, is not bad as a means to solve problems, but it's not an end. That's where the difficulty arises. Nor is aversion to change an end. The proper balance lies in the willingness (and the ability) to understand all the implications of both the assumed problem and the proposed solution. Neither innovation nor obstruction, when used properly is bad; but we have a habit of misusing them. And that's when things start to get dicey.

It's hard not to see this as an indictment of our two political parties – one attempting to institute sweeping changes which it believes will benefit society, while the other is applying the breaks, in the belief that the changes are inappropriate. They'll hurt more than they'll help. Unfortunately neither is interested in understanding the position of the other. Or, at least, neither is interested in acknowledging any such understanding, and compromising. Too many votes are at stake.

The saving grace^vii is that the system provides for someone who is in a position to mediate the disputes and, when necessary, to override the stance of one or more of the disputants or find a way around it.^viii And if he misuses that position and authority, it can be taken from him.^ix The voice activation system refers to the voice of the voters.

Next episode: “Six Of One" – But I don't know how many of the other.
.

I        The technology was in its infancy then, but the system worked, and it was better than the alternative.

ii       We didn't have typists on premises and the outside services weren't that reliable, so there were often long delays.

iii      We were in the early days of desk-top computers and many of the staff had never worked with them.

iv       Often the best approach is “Don't just do something, stand there.”

v       As Representative Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, said of the “Affordable Care Act,” “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Understanding the implications of what we do before we do it apparently is not necessary, as long as we act.

vi       However we understand it.

vii      Or fatal flaw.

viii     Saving grace or fatal flaw once again.

ix       Though it may take a few years to do so. And if the next President is of the other party he'll likely withdraw the Presidential Order that violated the principles of his party or issue a contradictory order.

One, Two, Three … Ten

It's time for a little musar.ⁱ

I try not to be preachy. Even though I know that I'm always right, I try not to sermonize. I try not to guilt the reader into following “the true path.”

Today,ⁱⁱ however, the format changes. Today I'm a sentimental do-gooder. A few days ago I didn't do something that I knew was wrong.ⁱⁱⁱ Instead I did something I should.^iv It wouldn't have made a difference to anyone else but, while avoiding it made things a little more difficult for me, doing “the right thing” made me feel better. My “good angel” won out over the bad.^v

It will help to back up a little. Actually, more than a little. Nearly four millennia. Back to the time of Abraham who, according to the Bible, was the first to formulate the concept of a single G-d. That idea led to the establishment of Judaism, and from that sprang Christianity and Islam. In the first book of the Bible is a description of the “sacrifice”^vi of Isaac by Abraham. G-d “tested”^vii him, but when it became clear that he would carry out the command, an angel was dispatched to stop him. It was the last of ten tests, and Abraham passed them all.

But a better word to depict the situation would be “challenge.” A “test” usually has unknown results and is employed to demonstrate ability, or something else, to a third party – an outside judge. In this instance it seems clear that the point was to demonstrate to Abraham that he would obey G-d's commands. It was a challenge to him. The omniscient G-d knew what the result would be. He didn't need a test to determine that, but Abraham needed to gain the insight. He had to face up to the challenges put to him, and to be aware that he had done so.

And so do we. Whether in school or on the job, in a house of worship with a clergyman or at home with a spouse, or just among friends, we're challenged every day. Often the challenges represent goals set for us by others, sometimes they're just tests. I don't mean to minimize the significance of the expectations of others – often goals that they'd like to see us fail – but sometimes they're valid challenges. More important, though, are those we put to ourselves.

Perhaps we make resolutions each year that we're quick to violate – usually without much thought. All that's likely to cross our minds is that the resolution itself was dumb, ill-conceived. We should never have made it. It's impossible to keep and not really worth the effort. We lack discipline. We cannot achieve the important, but daunting, goals we set for ourselves. We aim high, but that may be the problem. It's easier to lower our expectations.

None of us is Abraham. Not even close. We'd never be able to confront the challenges imposed on him, but we don't have to. The ones that we can set for ourselves, our personal challenges, however, are difficult enough. They don't seem very exciting. And they sound like Sunday School lessons, but there's no minimizing either their difficulty or their importance. And even if they seem self-evident – things that everyone does – the chances are good that they don't do them, and neither do you.

Sometimes they're difficult, but often they're easy. Do you see a piece of paper on the floor? Pick it up. You don't have to tell anyone that you did it.^viii You know, and that should be enough. Or perhaps a closet door is open or a light has been left on in a room that's now unoccupied. Dealing with both those situations, and many more like them, is easy enough and helpful to someone. You may not know who, and that's not really important. You know that it is. When my children were growing up I made a list for them. It was a list of jobs that had to be done before Shabbat.^ix There were many specific jobs enumerated, but at the end of the list was one that was a little more free-form: “Whatever isn't on the list but you know deep down has to be done.” They had to identify the problem and solve it.

Some of the things that ought^x to be done provide a little more of a challenge. The temptation to cross the street against the light when there is no traffic is great. And you may feel like a fool for not doing so, especially since the purpose of any such law is to guarantee your safety and you know that it's safe. However the law is the law.^xi It's more difficult to make a full stop when you see the sign, to stay within the speed limit, and to remember to signal every time you change lanes or turn, but that's the law too. No matter how careful you are, breaking the law is, in its way, an act of anarchy.

Perhaps the biggest challenges, however, are when it comes to money. Not just in business, but even when you're filing your income tax.^xii And they're also there when you get too much change when making a purchase. You may discover it after you've left the store, but returning and repaying the cashier who made the mistake will help that person to keep the books straight and to keep his job. You may feel dumb, but you'll have accomplished a lot.

And a smile. I know that sounds stupid too, but it doesn't take all that much effort to cheer up those around you, and that will cheer you up too. The way you relate to those people is probably the best benchmark for proper behavior. That means no gossip – a very difficult challenge. It also means that you don't trade insults with others, or even answer back to their comments when they say something dumb – especially when it relates to politics or religion. Remember that you won't convince them and they won't convince you.^xiii All they can do is cause ulcers and enmity.

Sanctimonious? Holier-than-thou? Yeah, I know. Preachy?^xiv Sorry I subjected you to it, but I feel better now. I got it out of my system.^xv It won't happen again. I'm cleansed. I know some of the challenges I have to meet. Perhaps I'll even be successful some of the time.

How about you?

Next episode: “What To Do When The Envelope Pushes Back” – Not that anyone cares.

I        Ethical teaching. The word appears in Proverbs, 1:2, and is translated as “discipline” in “The Stone Edition Tanach” published by Artscroll/Mesorah, Brooklyn, 1996. Google^® it for more information.

ii        December 9, 2014

iii      What it was is really irrelevant.

iv       “Should,” itself, is a preachy word, but it conveys the sense I intend.

v        In the Jewish tradition, the terms are “good inclination” and “evil inclination” – yetzer hatov and yetzer harah. Freud would know them as superego and id (sort of). Nowadays we talk about “executive functions” in the frontal lobes.

vi       “Tested” is probably not the best word that could be used, but it is the translation generally encountered.

vii      Genesis, 22:1. According to Jewish tradition the Akeidah was the last of ten tests of faith

viii     As a matter of fact, acts like that have a greater significance when you keep them to yourself.

ix       The Jewish sabbath.

x        Another judgmental word.

xi      There's a basic precept (which is often ignored, but that's for another time) in Judaism that “the law of the land is the [religious] law.” While the situation may become somewhat more complicated when there is a conflict between secular and religious law, in most cases no such conflict exists, and we are obliged to follow the local and national regulations.

xii      Or when you're paying cash in order to avoid tax.

xiii    And whatever you do, never back anyone into a corner. All that “gotchas” produce is enemies.

xiv      Actually, preachy is in the ear of the beholder.

xv       Now I can be a curmudgeon again.

NYT – Politics As Usual

The day before yesterday President Obama delivered the 2015 State of the Union address.

Yesterday morning the New York Times, in its lead editorial,ⁱ commented on it. The editorial was strident, and while criticizing the Republicans for not “cooperating” (compromisingⁱⁱ) it warned against accommodation, and counseled the President to stand his ground; it recommended confrontation.

The approach it favors might be viewed by some as one of “my way or the highway,” cautioning as it does, against compromise.ⁱⁱⁱ Compromise, after all, is a “false promise.” Only Republicans should be expected to accept such a false promise since they cannot be trusted anyway.

While the Times supports the President in his dealings with Iran and with Palestine, that is consistent with this policy since he is not compromising – simply letting them have their way and follow their own timetables as they string us along.^iv Sadly, similar action is all too common. But discussing problems with Republicans is a step he should not take. He must not let them have their way^v and he should certainly not compromise. Whoever said “politics is the art of the possible”^vi was too willing to cooperate. Ideological purity is more important than accomplishments that may help your constituency.^vii At least for the Times. The preparation of a platform for the next election is the highest priority. The country be damned.

My letter of response appeared in today's Times.^viii

i         The circumstances facing President Obama as he delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday night could not have seemed less promising: a presidency with only two years left to get anything done in a Congress that is now totally in the control of a party that has routinely ignored his pleas for cooperation. So he chose wisely to send a simple, dramatic message about economic fairness, about the fact that the well-off — the top earners, the big banks, Silicon Valley — have done just great, while the middle and working classes remain dead in the water. His remedy: skim from the rich and redistribute to those below, while deploying other weapons to raise wages and increase jobs.

 

He did not frame the debate over inequality as starkly as many economists have, preferring instead to talk about the virtues of “middle-class economics.” But he came close. “It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years, and for decades to come,” he said. “Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?”    

 

Mr. Obama knows his prospects of getting Congress to agree are less than zero; Republicans dismissed his ideas before he even voiced them. That does not make them irrelevant. Mr. Obama was speaking not just to the present but to the future, to the 2016 presidential elections and even beyond. By simply raising the plight of the middle class (and, looming behind it, the larger issue of economic inequality), he has firmly inserted issues of economic fairness into the political debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton or whomever the Democrats nominate cannot ignore them now. Even Republicans, disinclined to raise taxes on top-tier earners, may find attractive the idea of doing something for those in the middle.

Further, while the rhetoric was combative, even defiant in parts, the president’s proposal is hardly radical. It would raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent — which is where it was in the Reagan era. It would impose ordinary income tax rates on dividends and end a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs. These changes, plus a new fee on big banks, would finance a set of tax breaks for middle-income families, including credits for two-earner couples, increased child care and college tuition credits, as well as other programs, including two years of tuition-free community college for some students. And the whole thing is designed to be revenue-neutral, the tax increases paying for the new programs to avoid the endless wrangling over deficits that have exhausted both political parties as well as the American public.

It was hardly surprising that a president who expects so little from Congress devoted some of his speech to celebrating the things that he has accomplished against considerable odds. With Congress’s help, he rescued the automobile companies, jump-started the renewable energy industry, imposed new rules on financial institutions and, most dramatically, engineered a major overhaul of the health care system. On his own initiative, he ordered major reforms in immigration policy, forged a landmark agreement with the automobile companies on fuel efficiency and proposed tough restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

His task will be to defend these initiatives from almost certain congressional attack, wielding his veto pen, or threatening to wield it, much as President Bill Clinton found himself doing after Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority took over the House in 1995. President Obama should also seek out opportunities to use his executive authority to improve conditions for the middle class and for workers, such as fixing overtime rules, and, at every opportunity, use the bully pulpit on important matters like improving the minimum wage.

 

There is one other thing he must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise. Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable. Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies.

  

ii       Actually what the editorial meant was not that the opposition didn't compromise, but that they didn't “roll over” and do whatever he demanded.

iii      By him.

iv       Despite their moderate pronouncements, they are certainly not compromising.

v        “Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable.”

vi       It was Otto von Bismarck, but it's so much more dramatic to put it this way.

vii      Hence “Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years.” Indeed, if the President follows the Times's directive, gridlock is foreordained over the next two years.

viii          “A President Outgunned but Combative” (editorial, Jan. 21) begins and ends on the subject of presidential compromise. Describing the Republican Party as one “that has routinely ignored his pleas for cooperation,” there is no mention of President Obama’s own refusal to give ground to the Republicans, nor of his threat to veto legislation he has not even seen yet.

The Times, however, approves of that position, and urges the continuation of a hard-line approach. Rather than consider any views other than his own, the “outgunned but combative” president is advised to “resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise” so as not “to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies.”

But the voters already know. That was evident in the 2014 election.

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.