The Two Camps of the Silent Majority

I think there is a very large contingent of people out there who are basically anarchists--haters of power and coercion in all of its forms. However, relatively minor differences in how they weigh the forms of power cause them to be divided into two camps.


One feels, with no small amount of justification, that capitalism is the bigger problem. It pollutes, exploits, and pillages; it forces most people to spend large swathes of their working days toiling in petty little dictatorships where they enjoy neither rights nor dignity. It blares endless propaganda, which we call "advertising," that is as subtle as it is banal. It organizes vast resources into structures, such as corporations and trusts, where even if the human beings who are nominally in control desire to act decently (a fairly rare occurrence to begin with) they are nonetheless bound by fiduciary duties to act as amoral profit-seeking monsters. They are not necessarily fans of government, particularly not as it currently exists, but see it as the only available counterbalance to the monstrous Dollar and subsequently support it in the seemingly endless grudgematch between what passes for the Left and the Right in this nation.

The other feels, also reasonably, that government is the bigger problem. It launches insane wars for no reason and empowers religious fundamentalists. It spies on us with impunity. It teaches us all submission in the classroom and by the nightstick; those who can't or won't learn the lesson usually end up as one of the millions locked inside cages--and it does it all with funding derived at the point of a gun. These people tend to support an abstract ideal of capitalism, but they are ready to critique it as it currently exists--but they do so in hushed tones, if at all, out of fear of giving an inch to Leviathan and authoritarianism.

So we sit at endless loggerheads, wielding a tool we fear to fight an enemy we fear even more. It's an arms race, and until there is detente we will all lose.

Stink Finger

So, Congress is back to whining, the President is back to making speeches, the GOP Nomination is back to sucking, and football is back to distract us all from the ever-increasing speed of the decline of the greatest Republic on earth into the depths of fascism in the name of freedom.

Random Friday thoughts:

1. Do we really need a Senate?

2. Should we really be allied with Israel?

3. Is Islam really a monotheist religion?

4. At what point does the security-industrial complex collapse under its own weight?

5. Who is the better actor: Keanu Reeves or Nic Cage?

Hold On

So about that Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial...

It sucks.

I don't want to hear about how every person sees it differently - show me one person who thinks it's good. Except of course the Chinese guy who has never seen or studied MLKJr. or his family that has been profiting off of his death for decades.

It's despicable on every level.

The worst part - besides the glaring problems with choice of stone (Chinese), choice of artist (Chinese), or the asinine forced imagery of the broken rock - is the face. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HIM!

In fact, it looks like a racist's depiction of him! The lips are overly swollen. The nose is overly broadened. The pose - my god, the pose...

Let's be clear: Martin Luther King, Jr. deserves a memorial. Certainly more so than many of our elected leaders. But let's give him the memorial he deserves. He was not a Stalinist reformer, imposing equality under an iron fist. He was not a racial activist, advocating violent opposition. He was not a man who stood on a perch and watched as his armies went forth carrying his banner. He was a man who attacked the system through non-violence, through peace and love. He was a man who changed the course of history not with stern looks and crossed arms, but with words, words that challenged us to hope and dream of a better day, not just for blacks, but for all Americans.

I don't claim to be a King historian, nor a racial historian. I don't claim to be an authority on monuments or memorials. But I do know when our national history is being slapped in the face.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial is a slap in the face, not only to Dr. King, not only to the millions to whom he is an inspiration and hero, but to the very country that he changed.

Looking at the blackface Mao that rises out of the granite, this country that owes so much to the man can only come to a single conclusion: the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial is a disgrace to Martin Luther King, Jr.

Take A Look Around

So, about that Ames straw poll...

Michele Bachmann, hometown hero and newest darling of the Teavangelical right, won with 4,823 votes. Ron Paul, 12-term congressman and godfather of the Tea Party came in second with 4,671 votes. Tim Pawlenty came in a distant third with 2,293 votes (and then promptly quit the race). You'd imagine then that the prevailing narrative would be "Bachmann and Paul show the Tea Party's strength!" or something along those lines.

Nope.

Instead you got articles like this:

Based on what is known today, the Republican nominee for President is almost certainly one of the following, in alphabetical order: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) or former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). These three individuals solely constitute the first tier.

It's ok, though, the article does mention Ron Paul a few paragraphs later (after addressing no-shot filler candidates Rick Santorum and Herman Cain):

But what to say about Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who narrowly finished second to Bachmann in Ames? With his enigmatic libertarian views and advanced age (for a presidential candidate), he will not be the Republican nominee, but he is better funded and better organized this time around. It’s not clear who his candidacy hurts most or when it is likely to end, though it doesn't look like he'll drop out before the Iowa Caucuses.

What a jerk! How dare someone of advanced age and libertarian views run for president! Why won't he just quit already? Everyone knows he WON'T be the nominee!

Ron Paul being ignored by the media is nothing new. They could hide behind his poor numbers in '08, but not this year where he's actually a top tier candidate.

It's actually so bad, the media itself has noticed:

Roger Simon on Reliable Sources

Roger Simon's column

Politico story

Examiner story

The Daily Show opening segment from last night (8/15/11)

This is so typical of the society we live in. Instead of having an open dialogue where ideas are free to stand on their own merits, the media uses their power to tell us what to think and who to vote for. O! Benevolent shepherd yea enlighten us! If Ron Paul was really that crazy wouldn't the better strategy be to shine a spotlight on his views so that we can all see his negative aspects? Wouldn't a free society welcome the chance to debate opposing viewpoints - because, in fact, if they are wrong everyone will see how wrong they are?

By stifling his voice all the elites have done is lend credibility to the conspiracy theories; what are they afraid of?

Let's be clear. Ron Paul isn't advocating imperialistic expansionist policies, he isn't advocating discrimination and racism, he isn't advocating a neo-Nazi ideology worthy of contempt and indignation. No, he's championing the cause of personal freedom and economic liberty. By censoring Ron Paul, the mainstream elite are really betraying their true intentions. By censoring Ron Paul, the mainstream elite are digging their own grave.

I'm Broke

Taxes.

The most hated word in America.

Here's the problem: we have a progressive tax system that is artificially truncated.

The current Federal Income Tax brackets are:

Tax Brackets 2011 Single Taxes owed per year
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 Up to $850
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 $1,275 - $5,175
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 $8,625 - $20,900
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 $23,408 - $48,832
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 $57,552 - $125,119.50
35% Bracket $379,150+ $132,702.50+

(http://www.taxbrackets2011.com/)

What's the first thing that jumps out at you? The fact that there are five brackets to cover all those earning up to $380,000 and then only ONE from then on? So what our current tax system is saying is that your taxes go up 5% when you get a raise from $34,500 to $34,501, but go up ZERO percent when you get a raise from $380,000 to $1,000,000. In other words, the small business owner that has to work 20 hour days to earn his $380,000/yr gets taxed the same as the twenty five year old pro athlete whose entire job is to be a gym rat and makes millions per year. There's nothing fair or progressive about that.

The purpose of a progressive tax system is to shift the burden of the government from those who need help to those who can provide help. The thinking goes that the wealthy individuals and families in this country have benefited by the protection the United States has provided them, and as such, they can afford to bear the responsibility of ensuring the country's fiscal survival. (It's a flawed premise that's too often abused and leads to the wealthy feeling a sense of control over how "their" money is spent, but it's been the system we have.)

To that end, the system is failing because a) the increases at the lower levels are too drastic, and b) it stops prematurely. I would propose a broader, flatter bracket system that attempts to reduce these issues. It shouldn't matter what percentage of the population fits into each bracket, it should matter that each bracket represents a shift in earnings potential.

Freddy's Tax Brackets:

Tax Brackets 2011 Single Taxes owed per year
10% Bracket $0 – $10,000 Up to $1,000
15% Bracket $10,001 – $35,000 $1,500 - $5,250
18% Bracket $35,001 – $80,000 $5250.15 - $12,000
20% Bracket $80,001 – $175,000 $16000.20 - $35000
25% Bracket $175,001 – $400,000 $43,750.25 - $100,000
28% Bracket $400,001 – $700,000 $112,000.28 - $196,000

30% Bracket $700,001 – $1,000,000 $210,000.30 - $300,000

35% Bracket $1,000,001 – $4,000,000 $350,000.35 - $1,400,000

38% Bracket $4,000,001 – $10,000,000 $1,520,000.30 - $3,800,000

40% Bracket $10,000,001+ $4,000,000.40+

Obviously, millionaires would not like this plan, but tough - just another reason to make more money. I've pushed the rates down and spread them out more. The most extreme tax rate disparities would be at the $175,000 level but my thinking was that people who are at that level are successful businessmen or upper middle management types that frankly can afford it. This is especially important, as the current system creates some of the largest disparities between the lower brackets, thus almost sabotaging the whole system.

Republicans (populists, not businessmen, obvi) argue that a better answer is to not have a progressive tax system at all, but a fair/flat tax with very few loopholes and balanced burden. Not a terrible idea.

Of course, the real answer is that there should be no Federal Income Tax. The idea that our devotion to the State is based on our capitalist value is disgusting to all thinking men and women. But I digress...

Re-Arranged

So I was thinking, if the Presidency is so important why can anyone be eligible? Instead of leaning on the media to provide qualifications to the populous, lets rethink the whole thing.

The Romans had a cursus honorum that dictated who could run for what office and when. It wasn't always strictly adhered to, but was meant to serve as a sort of career path for the upper class men. As a teenager and 20-something you were a military tribune, then at 30 you could stand for quaestor, 35 aedile, then 40 for praetor and consul. The idea was that you needed the experience and understanding of the lower office in order to be effective at the higher office. There were practical reasons, as well: yearly elections and a Senatorial class that offered too few offices for far too many adult men.

Now these offices don't translate to the US, obviously, but we can learn from their lessons. Currently the US suffers from a bloated political class that focuses on ideology, not effectiveness, talking points and blame games, not governance.

What if we instituted an American cursus honorum? What would it look like? Would it be good or bad? Let's find out...

Age 18: Voting rights, military service (optional, of course, this is a free society), local office

Age 20+: State legislature

Age 25: US House of Representatives

Age 30: US Senate, State Governor

Age 35: President, Vice President

Age 40: Supreme Court Justice

The idea would be that you would work yourself up through the ranks of the political class until you hit the state or federal ceiling at age 30. I'm not convinced there should be definitive distinctions between the lower levels, but I am intrigued by the idea that in order to be President of the United States you must first have been a state governor.

But Fred, shouldn't Senators be allowed to run for President too? No. This may sound heretical, but if there's one part of the government that needs to be disbanded, or at least heavily altered, it's the Senate. It has way too much power, the tenures of Senators are way too long, and it no longer serves its original purpose: representing the states at the Federal level. (Yes, that's me saying the 17th Amendment is wrong.)

Anyway, just imagine how different the political scene would look if you had to be a governor before running for President?

Obviously, the past few presidents were all governors: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya. HW Bush wasn't, but as he was the imperator of the New World Order he gets a pass.

But lets look back at 2008. No more McCain, Obama, Biden, or Hilldog. The Democratic nomination would have been between Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, and Evan Bayh. The Republican would be between Huckabee, Romney, and Gilmore. (What up, President Romney...)

Now lets look at 2012: No more Herman Cain, Bachmann, Newt, Santorum, or Dr. Paul. Right now, the GOP nomination would be between Pawlenty, Romney, Perry, Johnson and Huntsman. Really, wouldn't that be better? Five successful governors jockeying for the right to govern the nation? Maybe in this alternate reality Chris Christie and Haley Barbour would join in, as well. Wouldn't we all rather watch that debate?

Don't Go Off Wandering

So, the GOP Debate was awesome. TPaw and Bachmann were standing right next to each other, staring each other down as they re-hashed all of their old Minny beefs. Great stuff. TPaw then made fun of Romney for being rich. That was awesome. Newt name-dropped Reagan multiple times. Apparently, Newt also hates communist spies - a lot - which is also awesome. And then there's Santorum who whined his way into more time on air, and that was less awesome. Santorum used his bogarted time wisely, though, by attacking the good Doctor Paul. Smart move for him, bad for RP. Santorum wins on hardcore christian conservative social issues and is thus labeled "fringe" or "extreme" but by punching up at RP - and multiple times, too - he drags RP back down to his level. Bad timing, it's just when RP is on the verge of legitimacy. The mainstream was bending his way and he invested a ton into Iowa. Of course he'll never be respected by the establishment, but they have to appease the mob and the mob is quasi-with him. But so long as RP is stuck with the "fringe" label he's easier to dismiss and ignore.