The 100-Yard Dash and End to Hyphenated Americanism

Race?  You Mean Like the Preakness?

We were informed today of something that I have had a hard time getting my head around for, well, since someone at the Census Bureau first announced this would happen, maybe 40 years ago; namely the current birth rate for minorities now constitutes more than 50% of births.  So, the minority is the majority?  I don’t really know how that works.  So, I read on. 

Just a little further in the article I read that ‘non-Hispanic whites’ will be outnumbered in the US by the year 2042.  That makes me ask the question: what is an ‘Hispanic white?’  That would seem to be obvious, but it isn’t to me, and here’s why: just a month or so ago we were all introduced to a Mr. Zimmerman down in Florida, who is, we were told, a ‘white-Hispanic.’  In as much as there needs to be a distinction ‘white Hispanic,’ there must also be a distinction ‘non-white Hispanic,’ (not to be confused with a ‘non-Hispanic white’).

Well, if you ask me, someone with the name ‘Zimmerman’ (good, solid ‘Hispanic’ name there…  Huh?) who must then be further described as ‘white Hispanic’ so that we ‘know’ what he is (and what exactly is he?) has pretty much reached my definition of a product of the ‘melting pot.’

But that hardly fits the story line someone is trying to sell.  Someone wants to stir up the pot.  What is the point of putting a headline “RACIAL TIPPING POINT” on the front page?  Is this a plea for some group in society to start procreating at a higher rate?  Is it a call for forced sterilization of another group?  What possible sane reason exists to even track this weird information?  Particularly given the inane reality that they force themselves to identify a man named Zimmerman as a ‘white Hispanic.’  Why not call him a ‘tanned German?’

Is this of any value whatsoever?  Well, sure.  It stirs up people to perhaps buy more newspapers and news magazines, listen to another insipid news talk show populated by folks who have nothing better to do then reproach the average taxpayer, and it creates more room for discussion and regulatory action by bureaucrats and policy wonks.

See, there is the problem.  You want to know who is keeping racism alive in the US, who really works at it on a daily basis?  Two key groups: the Federal Bureaucracy (start with the Census Bureau, and then make your way to Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education – they are all awash with figures on every possible weird brake-down of society by races and castes and shoe size and bowling scores, and when you are done with them, take a hard look at the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, I sat and asked myself this morning if I knew anyone of one race.  I also asked my self if I can define anyone as a pure color.  I did have a good friend in college who was black, his name was Azubekay and he was from Nigeria – med student, great guy, skin the color Indian ink.  Everyone else I know I would say is some tone of khaki – some are dark khaki, some are light, some very light.  So what?  What does that prove?  Everyone has some goofy mix of ancestors; me, I’m descended from Irish, Portuguese, some French and Canadian (or so I was told as a kid – never really researched it).  So what am I?  Well, I’ll tell you, I’m an American.  I’m not Irish-American, I’m not Portuguese-American, I’m not anything else, just an American.  You want to know what race I am?  I’ll stick with human.

Think about this: if the press had reported only that ‘Treyvon Martin was shot by Mr. Zimmerman,’ would we perhaps view that incident with a slightly different perspective?  Who benefited from reporting the tragedy in this manner?  (What is certain is that the nation as a whole did not.)

As for the Census Bureau, maybe they should focus on something else.  Maybe just focus on getting the basic count right. 

As for me, I really don’t care where you came from, who your great grandparents were, or how much melanin is in your skin.  (We all have melanin; in fact, with very few exceptions (spiders), all creatures have some melanin in them.)  Ancestry, besides being a fun topic of conversation at a cocktail party (“I’m the 9^th cousin of Jesse James” (I’m not, but it would make for a few minutes of interesting conversation)) and for the sake of certain specific medical conditions, tells me nothing about you.  You are who you are, irrespective of who they were.  You parents might be criminals, and you might be a great doctor or jurist or inventor.  Alternatively, your grandparents might have been geniuses and philanthropists and you are a slothful delinquent.  Does it matter if they were born in Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau or Guyana?  How?  How does it matter?  And your skin color?  Maybe we should test for it so we can determine if someone is a ‘white Hispanic’ or a ‘non-white Hispanic,’ or a test to measure melanin content.  What could that possibly prove?  What benefit to society would that provide?  I hope that sounds as insane to you as it does to me.

More than 100 years ago President Roosevelt (T.R.) called for an end to ‘hyphenated Americans.’  He called for people to stop viewing themselves as ‘Irish-American, Dutch- American, German-American and simply view themselves as ‘Americans.’’  His call is more important today then it ever was.  The wonks and clowns in Washington, and in the media, may not understand that, but it is up to us to stress it.  The next time someone asks you your race, choose ‘other’ and write in ‘American.’  If you have a chance to talk to someone, do your best to make them very uncomfortable for asking what is truly a racist question – let’s stop this foolishness right now.  It is certain that neither the government nor the media want to stop it; so it’s time we just took care of it ourselves.

(It is perhaps worth noting that if you reach back 40 generations you have more than 1 billion ancestors – more than the total population of the world 8 centuries ago – which means that, mathematically speaking, we are all 40^th cousins or less.)

Mariano Rivera - Excellence Personified

I'll begin by saying that I’m a life-long Red Sox fan, and therefore am genetically disposed to hate the Yankees.  That being said, what happened Thursday night is terrible: Rivera, out shagging flies before the start of the game, ran into the wall and tore his ACL, certainly ending his playing for the year and possibly ending his career.

For anyone who loves baseball, or sports in general, or is just a ‘student of the human condition,’ this is a sad thing, sad because Rivera is, in his chosen profession, what we should all strive to be: someone who loves what he does and does it as well as he possibly can.  That Rivera also does it as well as anyone else has ever done it is (or was) for all of us to enjoy.  Even as a Red Sox fan, who has more than once seen Rivera ‘nail the coffin shut’ on the Red Sox, watching Rivera come in and get 3 outs was watching a true master at his craft.

Whether it is sports, watching Messi nonchalantly tap in the ball with his heel, or Brady lead the Pats down the field for a score with just a minute left in the game, that kind of artistry is every bit as magical as listening to Yo Yo Ma or Itzhak Perlman (a devout Mets fan), and thus his loss for the rest of the year and perhaps permanently is a sad thing.

I have written elsewhere about the loss of Junior Seau, and obviously the death of Junior Seau is a much greater loss then a torn knee.  But Mariano Rivera and Junior Seau shared this: they were true masters at their craft, they not only played with brilliance, they loved what they did and in that lay the roots of their excellence: they loved what they did and worked as hard at mastering their craft as anyone else in their respective game (or art).  They are examples to us all in anything we do.

Here’s hoping Mariano returns to play next year, even if it is bad news for the Red Sox.

Victory In Afghanistan?

The list of ‘old saws’ about Afghanistan is long and storied (my favorite being ‘Graveyard of Empires.’)  They are of course, like many clichés, a little bit of truth but also a good deal of nonsense.  As with most clichés and pithy comments about war, they sound good, but after some simple investigation they are often found wanting.

Afghanistan has a long history of having been conquered, but, as the pundits will quickly point out, it ‘is never really conquered,’ and sooner or later ‘throws’ off its conquerors to emerge once again, unconquered, wild and free (fill in your own modifiers).  The problem with this kind of thing is that it can be said for virtually any country on earth that has been conquered, unless one thing happens – which I’ll get to shortly.  The great Prussian theorist on war (Clausewitz) had it right: in war, nothing is permanent.

Thus, we beat the snot out of Japan – but they re-emerged.  Germany was pummeled and pounded until the rubble bounced; it is now the powerhouse of Europe.  Over the last 3000 years Italy has been conquered so many times we have all lost track – still there.  How about Belgium and the Netherlands?  Virtually ground into dust twice just in the last century, but back with a vengeance.

When it comes to unlimited wars – wars in which the leadership of one country eliminates the leadership of another country – there are only a few possible ‘successful’ results:

1)                     Remove the leadership, establish a new government, and then leave.  The period following the establishment of the new government can be short or long, but once you leave, you give the country back to its original inhabitants.  We just did this in Iraq.

2)                     Remove the leadership, destroy the country, turn it into a wasteland, and depart.  If someone wants to move in, fine.  Tried by the Mongols quite successfully in several places in central Asia, and by others throughout history.  Again, once the conquering army departs the surviving locals will move back in.

3)                     Remove the leadership and then colonize the country.  This will be successful only if you bring in LOTS of colonists – the one exception I mentioned above. Of course, if you don’t bring lots of colonists you will be buried by population inequalities.  No matter when you look in history, the issue of level of effort in colonization is the key to long-term success.  For example, Persia conquered much of modern Turkey in the 5 century BC, but there was no large-scale colonization.  When the Greeks under Alexander swept out the Persians, they were gone.  And the Medes and the descendants of the Hittites returned to local power.  The British ruled India for more than 100 years, and established a British style government and culture on top of the Hindu and Mogul influences.  But the British eventually left and the Hindu culture and the Indian people have returned.  Conversely, the European conquest of both North and South America was so dominant not because of any determination to ‘wipe out’ the American Indians or Aztecs or Incas, but because millions of Europeans colonized the two continents.  The French tried to colonize Vietnam, but the numbers were against them.

4)                     Remove the leadership, but don’t eliminate them; later share power with them.  Not really unlimited warfare, it ends the war before the leadership has really been destroyed.  Once the old leadership returns to power they will re-establish themselves and their old country – as soon as the would-be conquerors are gone.  This is what the US appears to be ready to do in Afghanistan.

The point here is that every country can be ‘conquered’ if the would-be conquerors are both able and willing to commit the necessary resources.  But in the long term, which in the eyes of reporters without some historical context, is supposed to mean ‘for ever,’ ‘conquering’ (in that context) only really occurs when a nation is destroyed and its people displaced.  In this regard Afghanistan is no different then any other nation.  Its one distinction is that fewer people have really cared about the area for any extended period of time.  Genghis Khan and his sons controlled the area until their dynasty unraveled; the Moguls controlled the area for several centuries; the British paid dearly for the area, but eventually controlled it as much as they needed and wanted to.  Only to the extent that the Mogul emperors moved people in to occupy, live in, colonize and rule Afghanistan did the Moguls extend their rule in time further then the others.

But Afghanistan is no different then Fiji in this one thing: if no one colonizes it, it will revert to its origins.  So, if you want to look at it that way, you could label Fiji with all the same adjectives and adverbs that get stacked up in any wonk’s discourse on Afghanistan.  And it would be as meaningful.  (This should also be noted when the conversation of “American Empire” comes up; the term invariably is associated with the British, French, German (and a few others) efforts to grab land and establish colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas.  The US has never attempted to establish colonies and the difference is critical.)

All this is important as we look at what our government is now trying to do in Afghanistan and whether it can succeed.  In 2001 we removed Mullah Omar and the Taliban, and their symbiotic/parasitic allies al Qaeda, from rule.  But the Taliban, and Mullah Omar, remains alive and viable.  We have now made it clear that we will negotiate with them, and though we have hedged our bets a bit on the negotiations, the Taliban have recognized that we are not trying to eliminate them.  The opportunity for their return is therefore very much alive, and if we were to place a bet on it, probably better then even odds.

As far as the US being there for another 10 or 15 years – it will be trying for the soldiers sent to Afghanistan during that decade, and their families.  But, from the perspective of a nation making an investment in its own security, which is ostensibly what the US is doing, that is more or less a minor investment.

But whether we stay for 15 years or 50 (as we did in Germany), the following will still be true: the same people live there, and the same political movement – the Taliban – will still exist, unless the people of Afghanistan eliminate it.  They – the Taliban - will certainly be willing to negotiate a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai and the government in Kabul, recognizing that once they are back in power, even if only partially, they will then have a free hand in regaining control.  And, it is worth noting that Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, is 53 years old.  In 2024 he will be 65, certainly young enough to rule.

As for how, or whether, the US intends to continue to influence the power struggle in the region, between India on one hand and Pakistan and China on the other, it remains to be seen.  Is the US departing Afghanistan with an implicit understanding that Pakistan will do a better job of keeping Afghanistan under control in the next several decades then it did in the 1990s?  Is the US confident that political culture in Pakistan has advanced to the point that the country is stable enough to move forward, nuclear weapons and all, without the continued implied pressure from the close presences of US forces?  Is the US confident that the Chinese presence in Pakistan, which has been growing steadily over the past 10 – 15 years, will not be used to upset the political equilibrium and leave India convinced of a need to act in its own interests?  Are we comfortable with the developing strategic conundrum of three nations – India, Pakistan and Iran – that are (or will soon be in the case of Iran) nuclear powers, with each sharing an uneasy to sometimes-hostile relationship with the other two?  These and a host of other questions may or may not have been considered as the current administration hastened to sign a deal and enunciate a way forward in Afghanistan and South Asia.  But all of these issues will remain for years to come, long after the agreement penned in Kabul a few days ago is long forgotten.

Crucify Them? What do to about Petty Dictators

We have all seen the mid-level EPA administrator in the video talking about his philosophy of enforcement, which might be summed up as: “We make a few examples and everyone else stays in line.”  And I’m glad that he is no longer in his post, though he should have been fired, not allowed to resign.

The problem is not simply with Mr. Armendariz; it is not simply that he is not a satrap for some absolute monarch, free to interpret the law as he pleases.  (It was clear that he wanted the law to work that way, that is exactly what he said – more than a year ago.  And we must assume that he pursued that policy as much as he was able until this public airing of the video forced him to recant.

What he demonstrated, and the reason why he should have been fired, was that he demonstrated precisely how a nation of laws does NOT work.  Further, I suspect that his actions were an indication of more than the extent to which the Obama administration hates the oil and gas industry.  That hate is relatively insignificant when placed against a much larger issue: the issue of the corruption and abuse of power.

Now the abuse of power is not new; it has been going on for 6,000 years at least.  But it seems as if it has been increasing over the last several years (in the US and world-wide).  While we can debate what it is about power that is so corrosive of morals and behavior, the simple fact is that it is intolerable in a democracy, in any nation that believes that bureaucrats and elected officials are the servants of the people, and that they must be held to strict accountability at all times.

Mr. Armendariz’s video demonstrated at a minimum a flippancy to the rule of law.  It is probably more accurate to say that he believes, as do many in government, certainly many that worked for him, with him, and presumably those he worked for (who did not correct his behavior, but whose hands were forced only when – more than a year after that video, a member of Congress made it public) that the law is what they say it is.  It is all well and good for people to assert that ‘he was just saying this for effect,’ and that ‘he apologized.’  But the fact is that the abuse of power is part of the process of usurpation of power by those in government.  And it must never be tolerated to any degree if we wish to keep our freedoms.

While elected officials are at least subject to recall by irate voters, the bureaucrats who work in the vast regulatory agencies of the federal government are not.  In fact, with the exception of the most senior officers in those various agencies, getting one removed for anything other than clearly illegal activity is difficult at best.  Yet these same regulators have, over time, come to assume the de facto power of Congress.  Legislation is passed creating an office and giving it general powers.  (Sometimes, there isn’t even legislation, simply a decision by the President, as President Nixon did in establishing the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order.)  Once the office is created the bureaucrats expand on these general orders with the crafting of regulations.  The only boundaries on those regulations are the imagination of the regulators, and the willingness of someone to sue them when the regulations become truly onerous.  There is no process of review unless people – citizens – object.  And then you have a citizen or business fighting against an entrenched bureaucracy with all the power of the federal government behind them.

This lack of any serious review of the expansion of powers has stripped the citizenry of real powers and transferred it into the hands of bureaucrats like the would-be petty dictators at EPA.  At a minimum there should be a thorough investigation of the EPA, as well as the dismissal of Mr. Armendariz’s immediate superior.  The nominal Inspector General’s office in the EPA should also be reviewed.  Then Congress must take up the debate of just how much latitude an agency had to draft regulations and what procedures might be implemented to force some sort of real, rather than cursory, oversight of these bureaucrats and petty dictators.

Education?

There is an odd belief that seems to have permeated much of the thought of the western nations that we should not present our beliefs on various issues because it might be perceived as domineering, bullying, even imperialistic.  Not only must we respect the beliefs of others, we are cautioned not to even mention our own.  This is particularly true in the world of education, where, seemingly, every idea must be accorded equal respect and equal credibility.  To do otherwise would, it would seem, be dogmatic, seemingly the worst insult one might hurl at modern educators.

There is only one small problem with this position: it is patently idiotic.

The thing of it is, education is about being dogmatic.  To educate is to choose, it is to present one particular concept and not another, recommend a handful of books to be read, and ignore 10,000 others. Those are choices, choices based on the knowledge, perceptions and opinions of the one making the choices, based on the simple concept that the one making the choice, the one constructing the reading list – the teacher or professor – knows more about subject X then do the students, the students’ parents or friends, or anyone else.  If we reject that idea, then we should reject being taught by that teacher or professor.  So, when a professor insists that he will not be dogmatic, he is insisting that he will not teach.

This all occurred to me when I read about the foolishness at Vanderbilt University.  In case you have not been keeping up on it, the ‘leadership’ at Vanderbilt weighed in on the guiding principles of one of the clubs being formed on campus.  So far, so good.  Presumably, they are insisting on their responsibility to guide the students, implicitly stating that ‘we know better then you, you will act in accordance with our guidance.’  Very dogmatic and very appropriate.  Presumably, this is what the parents are paying for.

But it is what they came up with that makes me wonder if they – the ‘leadership’ – slipped and hit their heads.  The group in question wants (or wanted to – presumably this is over?) to start a group to engage in Bible studies.  They issued, (per University rules I suppose all groups on campus must have guidelines (which seems far to organized for me)) guidelines for the club.  The University’s ‘front office’ reviewed the guidelines and ordered changes.  Here is the text in question and the recommended changes:

Original: “Criteria for officer selection [for officers of the club] will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

The university directed the group to change the statement to read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

The line dropped was 'personal commitment to Jesus Christ.'  I’ll return to that in just a second.  But first, let’s consider a simple analogy.

Let's say you want to form a group that will promote love of Italian cuisine - an 'Italian Food Club.'  Perfectly fine, feel free to do so.  And if you were feeling particularly motivated you might want to provide structure to your club and select people to run the club, make schedules, keep track of members, order pasta with a light cream sauce, all that sort of thing.  You might even want to write down some guidance on how to do certain things.  One thing you might write down is guidance on selection of the head of the club, the treasurer, the secretary, etc.  It would seem that one of the more reasonable criteria is that you pick people who really are interested in the club.  After all, we wouldn't pick someone who loves Scottish food more than anything else to head the club, would we?  We would want someone who loves Italian Food.  (Does anyone not love Italian food?)

Let's restate that for our Italian Food club: criteria for officer selection will include “commitment to the organization [which is about loving Italian Food], and has demonstrated a personal commitment to Italian Food.”  But wait, they aren't allowed to say that they have demonstrated a 'personal commitment to Italian Food.'  Well, how can you join an Italian Food Club and want to go eat Italian food and talk about Italian food and not be committed to Italian Food?  Here's a hint: you can't.  Just as obviously, no one is going to care about the Italian Food Lovers Club or its guidelines.  They will slip in under the radar.

Not so for the Christian Club (which isn’t actually its real name – they chose anonymity). 

Well, it’s fairly obvious why they are insisting on the changes; as they say, they don’t wish to bully anyone, to restrict membership in a group would be exclusive, not inclusive, it would be imperialistic, it would be dogmatic.  And that must not be allowed to happen in a modern university.

It is possible that the folks in the ‘front office’ at Vanderbilt really are genuinely afraid and concerned that someone will be offended or feel excluded or put upon because the words 'Jesus Christ' appear in the by-laws of a Christian Club.  (Never mind that Vanderbilt was founded as a Methodist University.)  It may well be that they truly cringe from the idea of forcing people to choose, to voice an opinion, and are equally reticent about voicing one themselves.  But, I ask you this: go back and read the recommended change to the bylaws (above).  Can you see any meaningful change in the outcome of the bylaws based on their changes?  Is it possible that an atheist could attend club meetings and show a commitment to the club that would result in his being elected?  I suppose.  Certainly, I would guess there are folks in the administration at Vanderbilt who would salivate at the thought.  But is it likely?

Perhaps it is purely malicious and they really just don’t like Christianity and the opportunity to force someone to delete 'personal commitment to Jesus Christ' either gives them great glee or at least lets them hide their fear and loathing of Christians and the anger and frustration at those who would practice Christianity.  But, at the same time it is apparently okay to have a Christian club wherein selection for officers will include 'commitment to the organization' - which is studying Jesus Christ. Which leads to my suspicion that some of them at least don’t really understand the words, nor do they understand their role – as educators – to tell people to do things: read a book, write a paper that discusses a particular thing from a particular point of view, etc.  And if they really don’t get that, then they really have serious issues, particularly as leaders of a once great university.  Or are they simply afraid of the words ‘Jesus Christ?’

In the end, there are only a few possibilities in how we define the professors and leadership at Vanderbilt: they may not understand what they are saying, in which case, they are idiots; they may really have a great dislike of Christianity, but lack the courage to say so, in which case they are cowards; they may simply recoil from their roles as educators – who are their to lead students to acquire knowledge, in which case they shouldn’t be teaching (one might argue that they are Not in fact teaching).

This is not an issue for lawyers or Constitutional scholars.  Vanderbilt is a private institution and if they want to act this way, they should feel free.  But they should also pay the price.  Their actions are the actions of idiots, fools, slouches or cowards.  None should be allowed to teach.  Here's my recommendation: to all parents and to all you people out there who hire folks: pass the word: Vanderbilt is run by a low and disreputable lot.  (Sorry for all the folks who are going there right now, I would advise you to leave; you aren't getting a quality education except by accident.)  If you ever find yourself in a position to hire someone and he or she went to Vanderbilt, take an extra hard look at them; there is a reasonably good bet that there are major gaps in their education.

Hubris in the Service of Our Nation

Secretary of Defense Panetta appears to have a problem with language. He regrets the cost of his weekly trips home, but he tells us it has to be, that he needs these trips because he “needs time with his family.”

To regret is to feel sorry, disappointed or distressed. That's the literal meaning. But the meaning implies, at least among morally consistent souls, that there will be a change in behavior. ‘I regret my actions and I will change.’

But, while Secretary Panetta says that he is looking for some way to reduce the costs, he also defended the trips saying that “[I]t’s healthy to get out of Washington periodically just to get your mind straight and your perspective straight.”

Now, I am sure that the psychiatrists and psychologists out there have a fancy name for it when someone says he ‘regrets’ a certain type of behavior that he keeps engaging in, and then turns right around and defends it. But from where I sit, there aren’t a lot of options. Either you regret something and you are going to stop it, or you don’t really regret it all that much. So you are going to keep doing it.

(Note, we aren’t talking about those particular events such as war – we can regret going to war, but still feel it is necessary. Nor is this like a bank foreclosing on someone’s mortgage, also regrettable but also sometimes necessary. This is about personal choices and personal behavior.)

In short, if a person truly regretted some sort of personal behavior, behavior that is a matter of clear choice, he would stop it. If he truly regretted this cost, he would stop doing this. But Secretary Panetta, while he ‘regrets’ this, clearly feels entitled to it – he deserves it. Apparently the other people in the DOD or the rest of government who have to be separated from family, who have to work long and stressful hours, they simply aren’t as special as he is. He is entitled to more special treatment then they.

There is a word for that; it’s hubris. And while theologians will tell you that hubris is the intellectual and spiritual foundation of all sin, in politics, hubris is the foundation of all abuses of power.

What the Secretary really regrets is that this has become a subject of discussion. Power has twisted him and in the self-absorbed world of Washington, he clearly feels he deserves this special treatment. He is not in that office to serve the nation, he is in that office because he has agreed to provide the nation with his assistance, as long as the nation recognizes his needs, and those needs supersede other, lesser considerations. Of course, he has done such a ‘superb’ job at Defense; retiring ships and airplanes, cutting troop strength, cutting programs and reducing capabilities, without seriously pushing back against the White House, apparently confident that conservatives in the House, more interested in preserving various DOD capabilities, will defend enough programs that he can do the President’s bidding, remain a committed liberal, and yet boast of having preserved the security of the nation.

This is unseemly behavior, but it does serve to point out what kind of person we have as the Secretary of Defense. The corruption of power is sometimes best observed in how people respond to the little things. No one begrudges the Secretary of Defense his secure vehicles or his military aircraft: he needs them to maintain his control over US forces. But the fact is that the Secretary has come to view these as his ‘due,’ as if somehow his tour as Secretary is different from the rest and that he therefore deserves different – special treatment. In a democracy such behavior is repugnant to the citizenry. We should insist on the Secretary’s removal – not for spending some several hundred thousand dollars, but for thinking himself to be apart, and clearly above, the citizens for whom he works.

What's Fair?

For the record, I think it’s great that the Obamas earn as much as they do. And it’s great that Mr. Buffet earns as much as they do. The question really is not, and should not be how much someone ‘brings home’ every year. That amount is, in fact, determined by all of us. A-Rod makes $30 million every year because millions of people will pay to see him hit a home run (I suppose some pay to see him strike out, but either way it’s still entertainment). We will pay to listen to Adele sing. We also will pay for a good lawyer or a sound financial analyst. So far, simple and straightforward.

But the question that needs to be asked is this: what is a fair tax? To answer that question we really need to ask to other questions: what does it mean for a society to say that something is fair? And the second question is what is the purpose and meaning of a tax?

In this context ‘fair’ means (or seems to mean) unprejudiced and unbiased, hence no preconceived judgments and an absence of preference or partiality. And what is a tax? A tax is nothing more than a fee levied by government to raise money to run government operations. So, a fair tax would be a charge, levied by government, which was impartial and based on no preconceptions.

As it now stands the US government and most of the other governments in the world use some sort of version of what is known as “progressive” taxation. “Progressive” taxation simply means that as your overall income increases (however it is measure for tax purposes) your rate of taxation increases.

The justification for progressive taxation takes several forms. First is the simple observation that for a family that earns $50,000 per year (again, this is the adjusted income), housing costs, food costs and other ‘necessary for survival’ expenses consume most if not all of that income. Since little is left over, it isn’t ‘fair’ to tax them heavily. In the 2011 tax table (for ‘head of a family’) the federal income tax on $50,000 taxable income is $7,274 (a rate of 14.548%). For a family that earns $150,000 per year, the argument is that there is more remaining at the end of the year after all the various expenses, and the tax rate goes up, and the federal income tax is $33,185.50 (a rate of 22.12%).

If it were that simple, we could probably stop right here. But it isn’t that simple. First, we need to answer the question of what constitutes income. As it turns out, that really is what the tax code does. And the tax code is – literally - thousands of pages long. A hyperlink to the US Tax Code shows it to be 24 megabytes, 3.4 millions words long, but this is not everything – all the regulations, rulings, etc., just the law itself. For an exercise in frustration, go to the Government Printing Office website and browse through all that comes up when you search for Tax Code. (http://www.gpo.gov/ ) What all those pages do is explain and outline deductions and exemptions and exceptions. There are the obvious: children and other dependents, mortgage payments, etc. But, in a very real sense, all the thousands of pages of the tax code and the accompanying rules and regulations are efforts to identify and explain thousands and thousands and thousands of exceptions to the rules. And just to be crystal clear, deductions and exceptions are also called ‘loopholes.’

So, who uses those rules (exceptions, deductions, loopholes)? Well, everyone does. President Obama does; that’s why he only paid $162,074 in taxes on an adjusted income of $789,674. If you go to the tax table (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf ) you will find that the tax on an income of $789,674 is $250,320.90 . That would be a tax rate of 31.7%. Where do these exemptions and exceptions and deductions come from? From Congress, which continually adjusts the law based on inputs from all sorts of people who petition Congress to adjust the law so that it is ‘more fair.’ Petitioning Congress is what lobbyists do. So, we are back to lobbyists. And since all but a few of the thousands and thousands of deductions are only used by perhaps a few million people, these deductions are for distinct minorities, such as owners of family farms, or small businessmen or any of seemingly countless other groups.

In short, every one of these groups is getting special treatment by the government. And who pays for that special treatment? Well, the rest of us do. We subsidize their special treatment. In short, it seems that everyone is getting some sort of ‘special’ deal, we all have our own ‘loophole’ that lets us avoid paying some taxes, and all of us are therefore both subsidizing someone else and in turn being subsidized. Confusing isn’t it?

We’re not done yet.

There is also the issue of who gets the most from government. One of the questions that comes up from time to time is the question of whether someone – say Warren Buffet – benefits more from government then the rest of us. It’s a good question. The basic argument is this: if Warren Buffet has (2010 income, per Forbes Magazine) adjusted gross income of $62,855,038, isn’t he receiving substantially more benefits from the government then the rest of us? In this case, the ‘benefits’ in question are not specific entitlements, but rather that the benefits that he receives from the society as a whole, and the various effects of government. This argument is based on the concept that without the order and legal and economic framework provided by government, he would not be able to generate the income that he is generating.

There is one major problem with this concept: it suggests that his wealth (or anyone else’s wealth) in some way derives from the government, and that the government has primacy. In fact, the central point of the Constitution is that the people – the citizenry – have primacy, and the government’s assigned role is to create and maintain a ‘foundation,’ an ‘infrastructure’ which all can access equally, but after that it is up to the individual. Certainly, we can’t argue that Warren Buffet receives more police protection then anyone else, or more fire department protection. The US Army doesn’t protect him more than it does me, the Department of Education does not provide for him more than me. In fact, in as much as he pays 40 times as much taxes as do I, yet receives the same services at the federal, state and local level, one might argue that he is getting the short end of the stick. When you consider too that his money, when put back into the economy, either simply by way of deposit in a bank, or in a more aggressive and complex manner such as the direct investment in a business, results in both more jobs (at least one for every $100,000), as well as additional tax revenue from the income created by these second order economic actions. In short, Warren Buffet’s millions create more millions, and more tax revenue. So, charging him more because someone says he ‘gets more from the economy’ is really sort of foolish, isn’t it? (For the record, Buffet’s taxable income for 2010 was $39,814,784 and his federal income tax was $6,923,494.)

Finally, add on that there are dozens of different kinds of taxes: income taxes, sales taxes, inheritance (also called estate) taxes, excise taxes, capital gains taxes, and many, many more. And, then there are the taxes that you can’t really see. For example, not only are there federal and state taxes on gasoline (for example), there are also the federal and state taxes on the income of the oil company. And taxes on the company that owns the pipeline, the company that owns the truck, etc., etc. All of those payments – obviously – come out of the total revenue from gasoline sales – paid by the consumer. Which means that everyone, even those folks that the federal government says don’t need to pay taxes because they aren’t making enough money – the federal government IS making them pay taxes. It’s just being sneaky about it.

So, where does all this leave us? My mom and dad would probably remind me at this point that life isn’t fair, and I agree – it’s not. But, they would both agree that taxes need to be massively simplified. But before we talk about how taxes might be simplified (in a follow-on article), we really need to answer two final and fundamental questions: Why are there so called progressive tax rates in the first place? And do the benefits to society of ‘progressive tax rates’ more than compensate for any of the costs of such tax rates?

The concept of a progressive income tax is fairly simple: the more money you make, the higher your rate of taxation. \

Is it truly progress to tax people more for earning more? One might argue that, if we wish people to have an incentive to work hard, we – as a government – would reward them for earning more, and the only means the government would have to do such a thing would be to reduce tax rates as you earn more. As it now stands, if you make a certain amount of money and you will pay at a given rate unless of course you qualify for this or that deduction/exception/exemption/loophole, in which case you will pay at a lower rate; but if you earn more that rate will increase. But, and this has been demonstrated time and again by the high and mighty (President Obama and Mr. Buffet for example) that people will go through quite sophisticated gyrations to actually reduce their income and therefore keep their taxes down. Repeat that: people avoid income. Does that really sound like a good policy for any government? “Let’s set up a system under which people will try to avoid increasing their income past a certain level.” That is the unintended consequence of “progressive” taxation.

But certainly there are benefits to society of a progressive tax rate? In fact, progressive tax rates, because the result in skewed economics and often pretzel like twists and turns of logic to avoid taxation, arguably result in less tax revenue then would a simpler tax that was both easier to compute and easier to forecast. Assuming that the point of the taxes – from the government’s perspective – is to raise the most revenue, there has been little to show that progressive tax rates raise the most revenue. What then is the value to society of a progressive tax rate? It would seem that if the value is not to maximize revenue, then the tax scheme must be tailored to provide a non-financial benefit to society. The obvious choice is that a progressive tax scheme conveys to the populace the concept that wealthiest are shouldering the greatest burden. But, if such were the case wouldn’t it be in government’s interest to send the signal that the current tax structure is fair?

Why then is the White House constantly harping about the wealthy not paying their ‘fair share?’ I would recommend you take a look at this article and the chart about half way through the article. ( http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ ) Two numbers will suffice (numbers for 2010):

The top 1% makes about 20% of the total income in the US; they pay 38% of the income taxes; the top 5% account for 34.7% of all income; they pay 58.72% of all income taxes. And so my question to the President is this: Is that fair?