War, loverly war. In Ukraine and in the USA.

Been distracted from posting. Trying to prep my long-gestating Big Book on Artificial Intelligence! (Isn't everyone writing one?) But let's zoom in on current events.

First off, they are deliberately distracting you from what's important. For example, while I am ticked-off at the blatant banishing of some late-night comedians and the rampage of masked, tattooed gang-bangers and ex-cons kidnapping innocents off the street or even from courthouses... all of that has driven from the news things that are even more important -- much more important.

For example, the Trumpist-KGB gang has severed the sinews of Law, in profoundly dangerous ways.

I cited the firing of nearly all of the Inspectors General in most agencies, eliminating the skilled professional auditors and their staffs, dedicated to keeping those agencies generally honest and law abiding. See where years ago I urged that Democratic Congresses strengthen and protect those primly meticulous officials, as dedicated to non-political competence and rule-of-law as the men and women of the US military officer corps... who are also right now under siege.

Only now...

...Now it's JAGs*! The ones who advise generals what's legal. Now why would the Kremlin... I mean Republicans... want to do that?

And then there is the cashiering of 400 Internal Revenue Service CPAs who had been assigned to audit zillionaire tax cheats.

Plus disease researchers at the CDC and universities across America. (And the very idea of universities -- the topmost pride of the WWII GI Bill Generation -- is now under relentless, moronic attack.)

Which brings us to the assault on skilled professionalism that is scariest of all -- the gutting of anti-terrorism and counter-espionage experts, laying us spread-eagled and wide open to enemy attack. (Bush did that months before 9/11 and it sure worked for him.) All of which suggests two terms that you need to look up: - the 'Reichstag Fire'

and

- The Gleiwitz Incident ... and be prepared to chant those words when we hit the streets, after whatever fell tragedy Vlad & his DC stooges have planned for us, to serve as a pretext for martial law.) Still, you might stock up canned foods too. And realize that it may be your turn to praise the 2nd Amendment.

ADDENDUM: Those of you quoting the poem: "First they came for the Jews..." Well, first they are coming for the professionals. Yes, what's happening to immigrants is terrible! But that is not their core goal! Which is to wage all-out war vs ALL fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror.

Now who would want that?

*JAG = Judge Advocate General: the most primly meticulous law folks on the planet, who would make an ascetic monk seem lascivious. JAGs and IGs were the men and women protecting you, even more that the counter-terror folks and soldiers with Javelins. And they have been flushed away. By monsters.

** Vlad and his KGB (sorry, slightly relabeled FSB, with the same commie agents dedicated to the same goal: our downfall) hold kompromat on all high Republicans. Do I need to prove that, when Congressional GOPpers have ALL laid down to allow ALL of this, and so much more?

== End times... again already? ==

Veering in another -- frighteningly related -- direction. A recurring mania is apparently rising again... millennialist declarations that the fervently-desired apocalypse is coming! 

It's moronic stuff, of course, recurring every couple of years for the last 2000 or so... and in this essay I laid out for you why the 2030s will be an especially fraught time for those of us with Revelations-obsessed neighbors... or politicians.

Want something even more moronic? Twice per decade since I was ten, recurring episodes of UFO Mania have swamped media, along with declarations that this time all will be revealed, for sure! My fairly recent posting is about the sub-branch of "UAP sightings" by US Navy jests and such. Oh, fer....

Same thing. Upward prayers for a cheat code, rather than do the work to save and improve the first civilization worthy of the stars. One that we crafted, for ourselves.

== Ukraine and now... Poland? ==

Was the Soviet - um, Russian - swarm-probe of drones into Poland 'an accident'? Disproved by extra fuel tanks. Western analysts deem a 'test of NATO abilities &resolve.' A test that Poland and her allies - except the USA - passed brilliantly.

Only the reason for Putin's recent spate of near-attacks on NATO is one more of hundreds of things that were familiar to my parents' GI Bill/ WWII generation, but that time has erased from living memory.

In this case, the root is a tendency of national leaders in war time to assume that the enemy's home population lacks any virtues, including courage.

While this tendentious mistake was shown (somewhat understandably, but still immorally) by Churchill, "Bomber" Harris, Curtis LeMay and R. Nixon, it was a flat out religious tenet of Hitler and the Japanese imperialists... and Stalin. The leaders who ordered devastation of cities all shared a self-satisfying and delusional assumption...

...that the citizens of Antwerp and London, Hamburg and Berlin, Tokyo and Osaka and Hanoi, and now Kiev, would despair and knuckle-under. Instead, they almost always picked their way through the rubble and redoubled efforts in their roofless and windowless factories. (Destroying those factories certainly made sense and worked for the allies.)

Adolf so needed to believe this that he delusionally thought Londoners would buckle in 1944 when a few hundred V1 and V2 flying bombs murdered a few hundred civilians... a small fraction of those who died two years earlier, in the Blitz, inspiring their neighbors to strive harder, in revenge.

For more than three years we have seen Vlad Putin follow exactly this pattern, hurling destruction at Ukrainian cities and civilian populations, blatantly (and publicly avowed) in order to cow them into toppling Zelensky and submitting to Russian yokes. And all it accomplished was to solidify - diamond hard - Ukrainian national identity and passion to resist.

Note that most Ukrainian drone and missile counter-attacks into Russia have been aimed at infrastructure, war assets and strategic materials. Leading now to gas shortages across the whole country. Note also that last winter the AFU could have trashed urban heating systems plunging Moscow etc into dark and cold... ass did happen to Ukrainians. But they did not, because of sapient realization of what I am talking about here... that enemy-inflicted privation thends (not always) to make populations more determined. Though THIS winter will likely be different. Because Russians are by now ready to pin blame where it belongs.

Which brings us back around to Putin's drone probe of Poland. Which not only showed NATO strengths and served as a perfect training exercise. It also revealed Vlad's insistence on the feel-good narrative of enemy cowardice. And 'surely now - after 3 years of insistence 'hey will fold any day now!' It should be obvious to those surrounding Vlad that belligerent insanity is no longer an excuse. Rather, obstinate stoopidity.

== US political in a pathological state ==

I keep seeing calls for restored calm negotiation between parties, even though one side has unambiguously declared phase 8 of the American Civil War. * Now the latest meme spread on on social media? "Debate" training is supposed to calm everyone down?

Seriously? I took two paths in high school. BOTH speech/debate and science. The former was useful, but mostly at appraising my opponents' argument for polemical flaws to attack. The latter taught me the sacred catechism of science: "I might be wrong." With its corollary: "Ain't it cool? Let's find out!"

It's no accident that former debaters like Alex Jones and his ilk are in full-blown attack upon scientists and universities in general. Because facts, well-presented, can crush polemics! As every single position of today's gone mad right can be demolished by actual evidence.

Which is why the MAGA cult - spurred by "ex" commissars in Moscow - wages all-out war vs ALL fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror.

Look, I am all in favor of returning to friendly, fact-centered and courteous argument aimed at negotiation! But it is one side that ended that in America. Look up DENNIS HASTERT! Whose Hastert Rules in 1995 ended all negotiation in DC and declared total war on science by banishing the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. A total campaign that has continued with the gelding of OSTP, the disbanding of most anti-terror and counter-intelligence units, demolishing the audit divisions of the IRS and firing most of the executive agencies' Inspectors general.

Reprising earlier parts of this missive. This is not the GOP of Ike or Lincoln or TR or Barry Goldwater or Reagan, who would spit in the eyes of Kremlin stooges helping "ex" commissars to rebuild the USSR. This cult is at war vs. the entire Western Enlightenment, including the universities that were the pride of the GI Bill generation and that truly made America great.

And no, I will not be calmed down into being nice about it anymore. Not till their Appomattox. Then it will be "malice toward none and charity toward all..."

Which their cult will not show to me, if they win. They have already told me so. And they are telling you, daily.

A "fourth political theory?" Persuasive propaganda... for simpletons.

I'll reiterate some familiar themes in the 2nd half of today's missive, raising the spectre of the "Greatest Generation," and re-introducing my one-page bill that might restore some faith in honest government.  But first...

... let's expose one of the worst memes being spread by the oligarchs' propaganda machine. It starts with an "of course" assumption that's an insidiously vile lie.

 == What's old is new ==

Shills on today's U.S. right -- the same folk who brought us "the Fourth Turning" and "Deep State" -- are now throwing roses at the feet of Alexander Dugin, a bona fide monster, sometimes called "Putin's Brain." I do recommend getting to know him! Because  studying this fellow's technique will teach you a lot about the low art of agitprop, including a clever trick; promote an untruth by assuming it as a given. 

Dugin - and his many followers on today's were-right - claim to advance a “fourth political theory” beyond three they say ruled the 20th Century -- liberalism, communism and fascism. All three failed, they assert, hoping you'll nod your head and perk your ears, ready for a fresh alternative. A New Hope.

In fact, their Fourth Way is the same "Decline of the West" bull-puckey pushed for a century by every right-wing pseudosmart jerk from Oswald Spengler to Alan Bloom to David Gelernter to... this Dugin character, who promotes as "new" a style of governance as old as dust. Extolled as "time-tested traditionalism," it dominated 99% of past human cultures, failing every "test" of decency, fairness, or actual outcomes. 

The Fourth political theory is Feudalism. And it never went away, across vast swathes of the globe. Arguably, fascism and communism were variations: self-chosen elites crushing all opposition by force, under the figleaf banner of some religion or ideology.

It is gangsterism by those with money and swords, the theocrats and lords who stole everything from our ancestors while repressing science and fair competition. Only after Adam Smith denounced its horrific record of bad governance, and the American Revolution restarted the Periclean experiment, did we learn how thoroughly loathsome and discredited feudalism is. Our modernist, flat-fair-open system has accomplished more than any other... than all others, combined.

Yet, the urge to re-establish feudalism simmers and roils in the loins of every second rater who inherited daddy's silver spoon.  And they hire gifted svengalis to spin tales to undermine our confidence in flat-fair-open-scientific-rational and pragmatic enlightenment. These would-be oligarchs and lords and theocrats and kings need to be stopped, cold, the way 250 years of our ancestors stopped them. They are enemies of all human hope and any possibility that our grandchildren may inherit the stars.

When I was in Russia last month, I told an audience... "Your parents were wrong about a lot of things... but not about EVERY thing." Marx saw clearly what Adam Smith saw... and Pericles... that human nature propels the powerful and owners and kings and priests and oligarchs to use their advantages to cheat. Marx believed there was no way out but utter class war, that is, after the means of production were completed.

Heck, it may yet come to that. (On his 200th anniversary, Karl Marx is being bought and read more than any time since the 1980s). But Adam Smith saw another possibility: that dynamic competition and freedom and flat-reciprocal accountability might be solutions, less easily corrupted than class war. The radical revolutionaries of 1789, 1917 and 1949 went with the "Marxist" notion, because his incantations provided excuse for them to become the next wave of feudal cheaters! 

The U.S. moderate-progressive revolution tried Smith's approach... and it has worked better than anything since Periclean Athens. Than every other thing. Combined.

“Fourth path? My shiny metal…. Oh, you lying feudalist monsters.

== Drain the "swamp" with professional swamp drainers. ==

There are currently more than 70 federal inspectors general, one serving as ‘watchdog’ in nearly every national agency, though some positions are currently vacant. George Washington’s inspector general, Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben is memorialized in a statue in Lafayette Square across from the White House. (See the hilarious Danny Kaye movie “The Inspector General.)

NPR reports: "Perhaps the most important principle for every inspector general is ensuring our independence from the agencies we oversee, so that we can be effective watchdogs over them," Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz said. ‘It was Horowitz's office that investigated (former high FBI official) McCabe. He's also been involved in some other high-profile probes at the department, including former FBI Director James Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and whether or not the Justice Department improperly obtained a warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Horowitz said he could not comment on any of the ongoing investigations.’  Busy guy.  So is the Inspector General at Scott Pruitt’s EPA.

"Peter Tyler of the Project On Government Oversight argues that the duties of inspectors general are more important than ever, and they "do really good work, but the question is, does anybody listen?"

This article barely scratches the surface. The IG system is a blessing that has vastly more potential for good than is currently utilized. Indeed, the present system is inherently endangered by conflict of interest, with the IG in each agency having to hold accountable the person he or she works for. 

I’ve long proposed a simple solution that could be legislated on just one piece of paper, in a few paragraphs, transferring all departmental Inspectors General and their staffs to serve under a new official, the Inspector General of the United States, or IGUS. With cabinet-level rank and free to attend cabinet meetings, IGUS would nevertheless be independently appointed, serving outside presidential control.

See my writeup on IGUS. If this happened, public trust in government would rise. It’s not the only such measure that’s called for - (I propose others) - but it's possibly the simplest and easiest to implement on a near horizon.  

And see where I incorporated this proposal in THE FACT ACT.

== Selling influence ==

Alas, under the present regime, “swamp” creatures don’t even try to hide the vampirism. For example, interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Mick Mulvaney bragged to banking industry executives and lobbyists last month that they should increase their campaign donations to influence lawmakers, revealing that when he was in Congress he would "meet only with lobbyists who contributed to his campaign.”

Our representatives don’t view themselves as our representatives — they view themselves as representing the interests of their funders. And it’s not the first time one of them has let that truth slip out. Republican Rep. Chris Collins of New York, for example, revealed his donors told him to get the tax bill passed “or don’t ever call me again.”

What? You shrug that this is just another daily assault upon the republic... a new normal? Well, don’t get outrage fatigue! Sure, the America has been losing this phase of the recurring American Civil War. But we may be on the cusp of our Gettysburg, this November, when the Confederacy of Dunces gets pushed back by a resurgent Union. 

Instead of shrugging, join groups who can take a little cash and maybe a tad of your time, and multiply it thousands fold. For example, contribute $5 to Lawrence Lessig’s campaign to get money out of politics.

Or pick some "ostrich republican" who suckles fox-rationalizations in order to stay loyal to the madness, but who is basically a good soul. Choose one and cling!  Be tenacious, pulling his or her head out of the sand of denial.  Normal rules of courtesy do not apply, when nation, civilization, humanity and planet hang in the balance.  I - one by one - we peel away just 5 million residually sane American conservatives, the Confederacy will lose this round of our civil war.

Use their own slogan!  The "MAGA" crowd supposedly reveres the "great" time of the 1950s. But our parents in the Greatest Generation would slap every Fox-cultist. The folks who survived the Depression, crushed Hitler, contained communism, went to the moon, ended Jim Crow, built the greatest economy in history... and whose favorite (adored) living person was Franklin... Delano...Roosevelt.

== Can you spell "Itoldyouso"? ==

Find one other pundit who predicted this, in every detail. 

“Russia now claims the US missile strike on Syria largely failed — and that they've captured U.S. missile technology.

== The Bald-Faced, Actual Difference in Outcomes ==

Finally someone able to see, and point that to the fact that a stereotype has no clothes.

“Get this: Since 1977, the three presidential administrations that have overseen the deficit increases are the three Republican ones. President Trump’s tax cut is virtually assured to make him the fourth of four. And the three administrations that have overseen deficit reductions are the three Democratic ones, including a small decline under Barack Obama. If you want to know whether a post-1976 president increased or reduced the deficit, the only thing you need to know is his party.” - From The Democrats are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, in the New York Times.

David Leonhardt gets it right without actually using my clear explication that it is the Second Derivative of Debt – the rate of change of the rate of change – that shows the effects of an administration’s policies and the attitude of the party.  The popularized version is “gas pedal? Or brake?”

Republicans always hammer down on the former, democrats on the latter.  That’s always.  I mean always.  I mean abso-freaking-lutely every single time and always, always, always and always.

  

Suggestion 7: Free The Inspectors General!

Last time, we pondered the importance of the “fourth branch of government” -- the U.S. Civil Service, proposing that the new Obama Administration ought to visibly reach out to the millions of skilled men and women who were so beleaguered, thwarted and bullied during the Bush years.  A series of concrete steps were offered, and I concluded by recommending establishment of a new and important post, the office of Inspector General of the United States... or IGUS.  Now, I’d like to go into that notion, in some detail. (Part of a 12/08 series of “unusual suggestions for America and the Obama Administration.”)

Far from creating another vast new bureaucracy, this proposal would mostly utilize  payroll slots that already exist, today.  Every major department or agency has an internal Inspector General (IG), charged with examining operations and issuing warnings -- when it comes to minor infractions -- or else stepping in more vigorously, when things get out of hand.

The problem? Nearly all of these inspectors owe their jobs and paychecks to the very same secretaries and directors who head the agencies they are charged to scrutinize. Often, they are old pals, ensuring partiality and conflict of interest. In other cases, the IGs are just biding their time, maneuvering toward promotions that have nothing to do with a career in accountability.

Even when an Inspector General does his or her job with devotion and skill, there is no guarantee of being heeded, or even safety from retribution.  Under the Bush Administration, vigorous examiners were actively intimidated, or stripped of resources to do their jobs. Or put into a cloud of ambiguity. It is a dismal record and one that demonstrates the desperate need for reform.

Accountability Systematically Stymied

Picking from a myriad examples, take the recently revealed story of investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission.  According to a December 2008 report in the New York Times -- “The latest black eye for the commission came when it was disclosed that inspectors and agency lawyers had missed a series of warning signs at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. If it had checked out the warnings, the commission might well have discovered years ago that the firm was concealing its losses by using billions of dollars from some investors to pay others. The firm was the subject of several inquiries over the years, including one last year that was closed by the agency's New York office after it had received a referral of potentially significant problems from the Boston office.

“Similarly, the commission's chairman, Christopher Cox, assured investors nine months ago that all was well at Bear Stearns, which collapsed three days later.  Between those two events, David Kotz, the commission's new inspector general, has documented several major botched investigations. He has told lawmakers of one case in which the commission's enforcement chief improperly tipped off a private lawyer about an insider-trading inquiry.”

“...The enforcement division has been hamstrung by budget cuts and changes adopted by the SEC that make it harder to impose penalties on corporations, even when there has been egregious wrongdoing, Arthur Levitt Jr., the SEC chairman from 1993 to 2001, told the U.S. Congress in October. The result has been "a demoralizing of the enforcement staff," Levitt said.

Yes, we hope to soon be entering a new era.  Nevertheless, even if the Obama Administration returns to a policy of good and diligent government, will it be doing the nation a service by ignoring the systemic and systematic flaws that enabled the Bush Cabal to wreak such havoc upon our mechanisms of accountability?  By far the most patriotic and beneficial thing for the new team to do, while they are still in the full flush of their initial idealism, would be to change the system in simple ways that ensure this will never happen again.


Autonomy, dedication and accountability

Wouldn’t it make sense to appoint, train, and pay our inspectors through a channel that is completely separate from each department's political chain of command? Indeed, a system that is detached and safe from pressure by the legislative, executive and judicial branches?

Picture a uniformed service, with its own elite career path like the Coast Guard, or NOAA, or the Public Health Service, charged with protecting the legal and ethical health of government.  Under a relatively simple law, the inspectors and auditors would transfer to serve under the authority of the Inspector General of the United States.

Note: the Public Health Service is led by a real general - the Surgeon General of the United States.  By all accounts, these uniformed agencies are especially well-run.  Their dedicated staff perform with unusual elan, low turnover and punctilious attention to military-style rectitude. It is a tried and true method for instilling higher-than-normal standards of training and conduct.

IGUS would command a corps of trusted inspectors and observers, some of them with security clearance at the highest level and empowered to go anywhere and to see anything.  Trained to parse carefully the minefield of legal and ethical error, this corps would have to do much more than simply watch for outright legality.  They would also be advisors who best-understand the balance that every institution must strike differently, between short-term confidentiality and long-term transparency.
  
What better way to assure the American people that the government is still theirs, to own and control, even if some matters must remain discreet or secret from the public view?   One might imagine special rules requiring inspectors to stay mum when it comes to legal policy decisions that fall rightly in the political sphere, but giving them a range of options when they uncover violations of basic ethics and/or the law.  For example, an IG could not rebuke executive officials for their closed-door musings, but should speak up, confidentially, when a plan seems likely to break a law.

In recent years, the Executive Branch freely used “emergency” over-rides of many laws, especially those concerning competitive bidding for government contracts, granting hundred of billions in deals to close friends of administration officials, e.g. for reconstruction projects in Iraq.  It turned out that there was no recourse, no way to stop this dodge of the law, even when the “emergency” stretched six or more years. IGUS could offer a way to assure the public that the “E-word” will not be similarly abused in the future, by offering a check to this peremptory power.  One might even picture the Inspectorate as a way to provide basic rights to people who are being held under urgent "special circumstances" -- ensuring that those rare exceptions aren't abused or over-used. And, above all, that all exceptions are temporary.

IGUS could be appointed by a commission consisting of all past presidents and retired justices of the US Supreme Court, plus other nationally respected sages, with advice and consent of Congress.

Politically, this could be a move that has powerful resonance. The very act of establishing such a General Inspectorate would so clearly be neutral, offering no visible long-term advantage to the Democratic Party, that this law would (ironically) likely benefit the Democrats. Indeed how could the GOP dare oppose it?  Also, consider how this would allow fierce investigation of past crimes without sullying the image of a new Administration that wants to be seen as above petty vengeance.

Who needs a special prosecutor when every agency already contains all the elements for full investigation?  

With a simple change in the organizational chart, we might create an ideal force for accountability, a professional service that serves the people and the republic and the cause of honest government.

-------


Addenda: (1) A politically-oriented blog that I often highly recommend is written by my friend, investor Russ Daggatt.  It is well worth a visit, any time.  But his most recent entry is especially cogent, referring to Michael Kinsley’s recent call for an increase in the gasoline tax, compensated by reducing Americans’ payroll(FICA) tax. Oh... and (2) this appears to be my 500th posting.... argh...

Continue to Suggestion #8: Micro-Suggestions about the economic crisis

Disparities of taxation and wealth? Time to choose between ideology and civilization

The never-ending tide of troglodytic microcephaly from Republican candidates has the older, mainstream conservative intelligencia wringing its hands in near-despair. What kind of Twilight Zone do we live in, when GOP icon Alan Greenspan gives his highest presidential rating to Bill Clinton and by-far lowest rating ever to George W. Bush?

A veritable flood of former Republican standard bearers, like Paul Craig Roberts (the “father of Reaganomics”) have deserted, along with large swathes of the professional caste, from intelligence and military officers to scientists. Heck, rumors have it that the state of Arizona draws half its power from coils placed around the spinning in Barry Goldwater's grave.

Now, Bush family friend and renowned economic forecaster John Mauldin has weighed in.

"Far too many in both parties tell a frustrated America what it wants to hear, rather than the economic reality. The Republicans have some of the worst offenders."

John goes on with a riff about Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax". Here's an excerpt:

"Fair Tax proponents want a 23% sales tax to replace every type of government tax. No more income, corporate, social security, or Medicare taxes. And everyone gets a $5,000 or so "prebate" which covers the taxes up to the poverty level. What could be simpler or more fair?

"First of all, the 23% they talk about is really 30%. Under the proposal, if an item sells for $100, then $23 of that would go to the government (said to be tax-inclusive). That means the item really costs $77 and the tax is an additional $23 or about 30% (said to be the tax-exclusive rate). Add an average 7% for state sales tax and we are now up to 37%. But wait, it gets worse.”

Bruce Bartlett writes this week in the Wall Street Journal: "A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the Fair Tax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion)."

Mauldin: "Further, this is a tax hike on the middle class. If you make less than $15,000 you win. If you make more than $200,000 you win, because you actually save more and spend less of your income. This is a nice populist proposal which sounds good but is economically challenged. It only works on someone who has not read about the problems. Let me give you two links if you want to read more. One is to Bartlett's article and the other is to the people at Fact Check.org.

"The call by Huckabee and others to deport 12,000,000 illegal immigrants is simply economic suicide. It would create a depression (not just a minor recession) in short order. Let's reduce productivity by 10 15%. Let's reduce consumer spending by 7-8%. Shut down hundreds of thousands of businesses who could not get workers they need. Who will pick the crops? Or do any of a hundred jobs that Americans don't want to do? It would drive up labor costs and create inflation. It would be a disaster of Biblical proportions. Now, I am all for controlling the border. I want to know who is coming in. But we have to deal with reality, and the reality is that we need those workers who are here. The economy simply will not function without them."


HOW IS ALL THIS RELEVANT?

Why am I quoting all this from John Mauldin? Because it is vital for us to remember that not all of our conservative neighbors have gone stark, jibbering mad. Some are merely in a deep state of denial. Able to criticize bits and pieces of what has happened to their movement - as John does, above - though without (alas) allowing themselves to see the big picture. How the neocons, who hijacked conservatism, have relentlessly and deliberately reversed nearly every prudent principle that it used to stand for.

(In fact, I agree with John that IRS rules should be slashed and simplified. The problem is that every interest group lays down a ferocious veto, whenever their favorite offsets are under threat. There IS a solution! It is called "No Losers"... in which the tax code is slimmed by computer algorithm, seeking the minimum number of rules, under special, pre-set boundary conditions that follow a simple rule. For the 100 most common or representative tax profiles, the simplification algorithm makes no change in NET tax paid.

(Thus, everybody winds up paying the same, even if their favorite deduction goes away. It sounds magical, but, believe it or not, this really can be done! At very low expense, this experiment could at least present a proposed reform under which nobody’s ox is gored and the number of rules shrinks. Well, tax accountants would hate it. But that's for another time.)

In fairness, let's hear John out when he criticizes one of the catechisms of the left... that the rich aren't paying their fair share, since the Bush tax cuts. "They want to "tax the rich" and make more for middle class tax cuts. Sounds nice, but let's look at the facts. The bottom half of taxpayers only pay 3% of the total income taxes collected, which is 1% less than before the Bush tax cuts. 44% of the US population, or 122 million people, pays no income tax at all.

"The richest 1% of the country pay 39% of all taxes ($365,000 income and up), which is 3% more than before the Bush tax cuts, under the Clinton tax policy. The top 5% ($145,000) pay 60% of all taxes (up 5% from 1999); and the top 25%, with income over $62,000, pays paid 86% of all taxes. It seems to me that the rich are paying their fair share. Every category is paying more now than under Clinton, except the bottom 75%."

This notion that the rich are paying more nowadays - even after receiving fantastic tax cutes (during time of war) - sounds odd...

...and it turns out that it is. I hate to say it, but John is being just a bit disingenuous here. The middle class is paying less tax and the rich are paying more... because of a vast swing in actual wealth -- including income-generating property -- from the middle to the top.

This flow has accelerated so fast that the super-rich are, indeed, paying more net taxes, despite their low tax rates.


TIME TO CHOOSE... BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND CIVILIZATION

Another way to put this would be to ask “How much tax is paid on the top 1% (by accumulated dollar value) of wealth, rather than the top 1% (by population) of wealth owners. That tax has inarguably gone down. Way down. Resulting in yet further wealth transfer in that same direction, so that more percentage points of overall wealth are owned by that top 1% of owners.

Thus, John manages to make a truly terrifying vicious spiral -- threatening a new age of feudal style aristocratism -- sound benign. He should know better.

In other words, the very same facts that he uses to deflect criticism of the Bush Tax Cuts actually show just how far those cuts have skewed the system in favor of those who are raking it in. Without comparing these stats of gross tax payments to the growing disparity in actual wealth, they are deeply misleading. In fact, if you seek the one common thread, among every Republican candidate’s tax proposals, it is this. All of them seek ways to accelerate further transfer of wealth percentage shares into the hands of the top 1% of individual owners.

Yes, some of the dems’ suggested means of reversing this trend are questionable, in their own right. I am far less interested in solutions that are confiscatory than those aimed at regulating and counterbalancing activities that are - in themselves - criminally stupid, market-warping acts of collusion by a narrow clade of golf buddies. Simply prevent outrageous thievery and re-introduce market forces at the top! That ought to solve the problem. Certainly defenders of idealised markets tell us so!

For example, try breaking up interlocking directorates (Republican Teddy Roosevelt could have told you that!) Or adjusting the rules of compensation for CEOs, directors, etc, so that their rewards come largely from ten-year company stock options! That would reshape the playing field so that managers’ best interests coincided with society’s. Oh, and those who run a company into the ground would not flutter away with 8-figure buyouts. The market for managerial talent would remain flat and fair. It would just remove the incentive for 10,000 golf buddies to conspire together to rob us all.

(Does nobody ever examine the fundamental premise-assumption underlying these godawful CEO compensation deals? The capitalist premise is that such vast payouts should attract brilliant people from other fields, until competition drives the pay levels back down!

(In effect, the golf buddies are telling us that they are mutant-level talents, like top basketball stars, worth any price, so the rules of supply/demand will never apply to them! Funny thing though. Their system to decide all this is a classic circle-jerk.)

We need to ponder whether it actually "defends market capitalism" when these wealth flows so severely alter our social structure that they threaten to entrench a quasi-feudal aristocracy. Don't forget who Adam Smith called the true and worst enemies of markets! In his day, socialism and bureaucratic regulation were FAR from the top enemies of market enterprise! Indeed, throughout human history, market enterprise had one major enemy. Conspiratorial oligarchy.

Those who style themselves as defenders of liberty and markets need to step back. They need to remember that the masters of Guided Allocation of Resources (GAR) are enemies of freedom, of every kind. We don’t need their clique to guide us. Or any clique. What we need is our Enlightenment back.


=== More political misc ====

See a bitter, but illuminating, ex-insider’s view of what’s become of TV news by veteran reporter/producer John Hockenberry, in MIT Technology Review. Especially depressing is the part where he tells of tryig to interview members of the bin Laden family, only to be thwarted from above.

Have I been crazy to suggest that there’s a lot more going on in the R’oil Desert Kingdom than the Bush Administration wants us to learn? You really, really need to read “Confessions Of A Terrorist,” which exposes one of the biggest smoking guns ever. Or at least, since scores of potential material witnesses, from the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers, were whisked out of the US on luxury charters, without ever being questioned, on the same day that Americans were forbidden to fly.

Following up this article, I’d be interested if anybody has read Gerald Posner’s Why America Slept (Random House), is a lean, lucid retelling of how the CIA, FBI and U.S. leaders missed a decade's worth of clues and opportunities that if heeded, Posner argues, might have forestalled the 9/11 terrorist attacks. My interest is very narrow and specific, whether Posner mentions anything about FBI agents or others being re-assigned away from counter-terror duties, during the first eight months of the Bush Administration, in order to go skeleton hunting for dirt about the Clintons. So far, my sources on this are anecdotal, not statistical. If the numbers were as high as I suspect, it could be the biggest scandal of this entire, sordid period.

Finally, here are a few more points to add at the addendum following my main article: Ostrich Papers: How It Will Take All Decent Americans to Restore Decency to America...

* What if, in the middle of a declared state of dire emergency and an ongoing war -- one that was using up all American ground forces and devastating the budget -- a Democratic President (say, FDR) were to regularly walk away from his job and take more days off than any other in history? Even exceeding the earlier record set by Ronald Reagan? And setting this milestone with a whole year left before his term ran out? Would you Have let Bill Clinton get away with hurling our forces into harm’s way, then turning away to kick back with cronies for weeks at a stretch, on their new, mega-ranches?

Over the past few months, two of the most high-profile inspectors general in government have faced public firing squads. As the Washington Post on its front page on Friday, Stuart Bowen, the inspector general tasked with investigating Iraq reconstruction, now faces an investigation himself. Several government agencies are examining charges that his office was involved in massive mismanagement and waste, the very sins he had been tasked with uncovering in Iraq. Most puzzlingly, over twenty-five of his employees earned more than General David Petraeus did last year. This article in the New Republic is naturally tilted-against the Bush Administration. But then, so are the facts.

Who was speaking about inspectors general two years ago? See my article: Free the Inspectors General. Amazing that such a simple and blatantly sensible suggestion gets no notice, alas.

--See more on the Economy: Past, Present and Future

David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com