Do We Need Traffic Laws? Ask The NRA

According to the NRA we don't need background checks or other gun laws because criminals will always get guns. How many of you drive 30 ... 35 ... or more, in a 25 mph zone? So we have speed laws, but we don't obey them anyway. How many of you want to do away with speed limits? I mean do AWAY with speed limits! Kids playing in the street? The hell with the little brats, run over them! 88 year old Mrs. Jones crossing the street? Kiss her goodbye! You'll find her up the street real quick. You see, if you listen to the political right, which includes the leadership of the NRA (that's the National Rifle Association, for those unaware), the problem with the country isn't under regulation, it's over regulation; we've just got too damned many laws. We heard the same thing about banking. We needed "deregulation," and we got it, pushed heavily by that stalwart American (then) Senator Phil Gramm, known for calling Americans "a bunch of whiners" during the 2008 presidential election campaign, because people complained about the economy.* Some conservatives even believed the banking industry could regulate itself! Yeah right, and I'm going to grab that pot of gold from the next rainbow I see.

Folks, this is all part of the same bunch of malarkey that has come from that bunch of reactionaries for decades. They pushed deregulation for banking, but when the industry proceeded to get itself into trouble, I don't recall the right wingers taking ANY responsibility for the meltdown, but you have to understand their philosophy, business is NEVER wrong. The free markets are always right. Now it's about gun laws. Have we learned any lessons?

* Gramm was then working for John McCain's campaign. He was an.. ahh, "economic adviser."

WORD HISTORY:
Speed-First the noun form of this word, which traces back to Indo European "spe," which had the notion of "success." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "spodiz," with the same meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sped," presumably with a long "e" sound, with the meanings "success, prosperity, good fortune, good luck," but also "quickness." Just a total guess, but perhaps like the saying "the early bird catches the worm," the idea of "success" being often associated with "quickness," and even "quickness of mind," may have given the word the secondary meaning which eventually became primary in English and other Germanic languages. Anyway, the word then became "spede," with the secondary meaning of "quickness" gaining momentum, and by the time the word became "speed," the "quickness" meaning had prevailed, undoubtedly helped along by English borrowing foreign words like "prosperity" and "success," which filled those respective meanings. Old Germanic had a verb form, "spodijanan," which meant "to succeed." This then spawned Old English "spedan," which meant "to succeed, to prosper, to have success, to move with haste." Like the noun form, this eventually became "speed," with the "move with haste" meaning becoming the main meaning. The other West Germanic languages^ had/have forms of the word too, although from what I can tell, only Dutch ("spoed"=haste) and Low German Saxon ("spood"=success) have surviving nouns, although Dutch has the compound noun "voorspoed," which means "success." Verb forms have endured in German, which has "sputen" ("to hurry, to hasten"), in Dutch, which has "spoed maken" (literally "make haste"), Low German Saxon "spoden" ("to hurry, hasten"). I could not find a form in Frisian.

^ North Germanic apparently did not use forms, or if there were forms, they died out without any record being left behind. 

Rolling Back Fascism Is Not Easy, Part Five/Final

Ingrained within fascism has been a "survival of the fittest" code. This seems to appeal to some of the wealthiest people in society (and some others), but certainly not all.  When you aren't particularly worried about how you'll get your next meal or how you're going to pay your rent or electric bill, there might just be a tendency for a disconnect with those struggling to make ends meet, although there are certainly people who abuse the system. The thing is, not everyone getting some sort of assistance is a freeloader; yet, to hear those on the political right talk, the country is just teeming with a bunch of bums. Some of those who have screamed and whined the loudest, like Mitt Romney, have done very well in this country, and I just wonder if they've ever considered how much corporate welfare and questionable, if not outright wasteful, government money from government at all levels (federal, state, local), including for defense, has gone into the bank accounts of some of our wealthiest citizens. My "guess" is, there's been more of that abuse than by those citizens far, far down the economic ladder. The wealthy wouldn't have lobbyists otherwise. The poor can't afford to hire big time lobbyists. Unlike many poorer Americans, the wealthy aren't fighting for survival, they're fighting for "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money." Remember this slogan, "Success, not excess." We need to stop paying heed to those concerned with the plight of billionaires and millionaires, and get back to paying attention to America's struggling middle class and poor. The rich can and will take very good care of themselves, as they always have, but they will have to take less and workers at all levels will have to get more, and that means the wealthy will be kicking and screaming all the way, such is their sense of "entitlement." 

The survival of the fittest part of fascism also appeals to those who want virtually no rules or regulations, as that's true "survival of the fittest." They like the idea of returning to the pre-civilization era, before some humans started worrying about others and sharing certain things. Nope, in their narrow little world, you're on your own, except when it comes to fighting wars, then you MUST belong to their community or face severe consequences, including death.* Their ultimate point is to keep the government and economy from functioning so that people will turn to them. "Hate the government, shut down the government, try to stop the economy from recovering, stop Obama from succeeding, then let us establish a government," this lies behind their ideas.

Unions have declined, but that hasn't stopped the whining by wealthy interests, who have been rather successful in convincing many average people to support the war on unions with the tactic, "Support our anti-union plans and we'll give a job for $8.00 an hour." Of course, said under their breath and with a snicker is, "How you get by on such wages is YOUR problem, but we'll do just fine paying you eight bucks." Fascism always seeks to destroy unions to keep wealthy interests supporting them and to eliminate a source of organized opposition. Beware before it's too late! As I just noted, the economic meltdown brought on by deregulation and poor oversight of financial markets and banks has given wealthy interests a chance to exploit the fear of many average Americans by getting them to take less money and benefits and pitting workers against unions; "divide and conquer." Of course, the wealthiest Americans don't take less money, they take more! There's been little shared sacrifice; in fact, some wealthy interests have whined that they deserve more! As I've mentioned in previous articles, the Mr. Thurston Howell multimillionaire character from "Gilligan's Island" perhaps put it best when he heard that someone was spending some of his money, he said something to the effect, "Little does he care how hard other people worked to make me that money." This survival of the fittest mentality, if carried to its ultimate, would lead to the demise of mankind, as only one person, the most ruthless of all, would survive, and their ultimate death would extinguish humans. And of course, with no other humans to exploit, their death would probably come rather quickly.

Fascists seek to exclude others from their own self created little worlds where they dominate as an elite. Their warped minds build up false enemies as Hitler did with Jews. In this country the hate has spewed forth against African-Americans, Latinos, unions, and yes, sometimes Jews or Muslims. You can't maintain a nation by exclusion, including "undesirables" only when you want them to fight wars or to exploit their labor. The survivalist, ultra nationalist fascists feel a devout hatred for people they see as "foreigners," and they'll use any lie, seeing themselves as above reproach because of their duty to protect others from the people they hate. The "birthers" prove this point all the time, led by one Donald Trump, a survival of the fittest fascist if there ever was one. Roger Ailes has provided the drumbeat of propaganda for the increased fascism in our country, using the technique of  "keep repeating the same lies until enough people accept them as truth." No political party or philosophy has a monopoly on truth, but this is orchestrated by Ailes-led "Fox News," a propaganda organization devoid of any shame as Ailes promotes it as "fair and balanced." 

So, you don't want to be called a "fascist?" Don't act like one and don't support those who are. I suppose all of us at one time or another needs to look into a mirror and ask ourselves some tough questions. If you have been trending toward fascism, take a deep breath, look into the mirror and face reality, you'll feel a lot better than being on the side of evil. We're all part of selfishness, that's why we have to keep reminding ourselves about reaching out to those less fortunate. We have to keep fighting the fight against our own worst inclinations and fears. We aren't perfect individually and we won't be perfect as a nation, but we don't have to be fascists! 

* See "Note ** " in the previous part of this series:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/01/rolling-back-fascim-is-not-easy-part.html

WORD HISTORY:
Frock-This word's meaning has varied over time, but generally it came to mean "a long, loose, gown-like garment worn by people of the clergy," but also used as a term for "a hunting coat," and "a formal coat for men," which evolved into the "tails," for white tie, and as part of the term "frock coat," a coat previously used for formal daytime dress for men. The word is still around, but I suppose its most common usage in today's English is as part of "defrock;" that is, "to dismiss someone from the clergy." It "seems" to go back to Indo European "ruk/rugk," which meant "to spin (cloth/fabric)." Its Old Germanic offspring was "rukkaz," which meant "a jacket," but also could mean "a skirt" (Old English had "rocc," meaning "over garment," and German still has "Rock," which means both "jacket" and "skirt," and the other Germanic languages have forms, too). Latin borrowed a form of the word from Germanic, which was then inherited by its Old French offspring, or Old French borrowed a form from Frankish, a Germanic dialect/language, and then passed it to Latin. In any case, the Old French form became "froc," with the religious garment/gown meaning, which was then borrowed into English in the 1300s as "frok," before the modern version. The "f" beginning in the French word "could" be from the influence of Latin "floccus," which meant "a lock of wool," thus; if true, making "froc" something of a compound meaning "wool gown/garment." German borrowed the word from English in the 1700s as "Frack" (the "a" is pronounced as in "father," making it very similar to English "frock") and in modern German it means "a man's formal evening dress, tails."

Reagan's Question Reversed

In the debate between candidate Ronald Reagan and incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan looked into the camera and asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" While I was not a big fan of Jimmy Carter, he faced a difficult era, as did his immediate predecessor, Gerald Ford, as the nation's dependency on foreign oil had grown tremendously, the divisive Vietnam War had scarred the nation's psyche and the scandals of President Richard Nixon's administration had helped to bring much skepticism about government to the country. A couple of crises in the Middle East, beginning during the Nixon administration, drove oil and gasoline prices up, putting a drag on the American economy and bringing a strong current of inflation to the economy, as oil/gasoline costs impact the cost of everything else.

Since Ronald Reagan implemented trickle down economics under the name "supply side," and a broader economic program dubbed "Reaganomics," is the COUNTRY better off? If you're part of the wealthiest segment of America, you can truly say you're better off. More and more of the nation's wealth has been going to the wealthiest of the wealthy  It didn't come out of thin air folks, it came from your pockets. This isn't magic. On the other hand, incomes for most other Americans have either lost ground or basically stagnated since the days of Reaganomics. The nation's debt under Reagan soared, including private debt.* That means the interest paid to finance that debt, both public and private, has taken a big chunk of money. Where did it go? What segment of society owns the overwhelming percentage of stocks and bonds? It's called a "transfer of wealth" folks, and it's being transferred from most Americans to the wealthiest Americans to this very day. Is it being transferred there because they need the money? No, this is about power and ego trips, and you're paying to finance those ego trips. It is interesting how some Americans who grew up decades ago and who became successful in a system where taxes were higher, now say taxes have to be cut so their kids or grandchildren can prosper too. Some of the greediest of the greedy, I mean, some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, want further tax cuts for themselves. In the meantime, since Reagan took office on January 20, 1981, is American education better? Is America's infrastructure better? Are average Americans more economically secure? Reagan was an economic fraud who used deficits and money printing, while claiming to be against deficits and money printing. That's part of the legacy he really left.

Another part of Reagan's legacy was the move to turn loose a bunch of psychopathic individuals who have run over other Americans in an attempt to satisfy their egomania by amassing more and more wealth, regardless of who else suffers, and at the expense of the country. They have perverted the meaning of freedom for their own self aggrandizement, and they will help fund anyone who will further their cause. It is no coincidence that they are now searching for other sources of money to soothe their troubled egos. They ship American jobs overseas without batting an eye, then use cheap labor foreign countries as examples as to why American unions want too much money for workers. Of course I don't recall hearing the argument about the wealthy of those nations making less than America's wealthiest of the wealthy. No sirree, YOU make too much, not them. They have a sense of entitlement. Now they can't wait to get their grimy hands on Social Security, something their parents and grandparents dreamed of. All the while about half of America snoozes away, oblivious to what's going on, at times complaining about how the country has gone down hill, but then doing nothing to stop the escalating slide.

* Only during the last couple years of the Clinton administration did the country live within its means, and in fact, there were surpluses used to help pay down some previous debt. The plans which got us to that point came from bipartisan deals, including between President George Bush (Sr.) and Democrats in the early 1990s, and again between President Clinton and Republicans in the mid 1990s.

WORD HISTORY:
Trickle-This seems to be an English creation, although it is derived from a Germanic source, which gave English and the other Germanic languages forms of the word "strike." It traces back to Indo European "streig," which had the notion of "to rub, to stroke, to press." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "strikanan," with much the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "strican," which meant "to rub, to stroke, to smooth out, to wipe off," but it also had a further meaning of "to move, to run, to flow," perhaps from the notion of "something moving over the surface," as the base meanings denote actions requiring "motion over a surface;" as in, "to stroke the dog's head;" "to rub your forehead;" "to smooth out the soil," for example. From the verb "strican" came the noun "stickle," a tool used to sharpen cutting tools; that is, "to rub them until sharp." This then produced "stricklen," a verb that meant "to have tears flow down the face." English and some other Germanic languages initially used forms of "drop/drip" to convey the meaning "trickle." Gradually the initial "s" sound died out by the late 1200s, and the word also broadened in meaning to include water or other liquids, and a noun form, derived from the verb, meant "brook, creek." 

They Can't Stop The Money Obsession

Some people are good at making money. Some people are great "wheeler-dealers," something I've never been good at. Some people just can't get money and making money out of their minds, EVER! A favorite television comedy of mine in the late 1960s was "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir," starring Hope Lange, Edward Mulhare, and Charles Nelson Reilly.* The show was "based on" the 1940s movie with Rex Harrison and Gene Tierney. Reilly played Lange's nervous, money-loving, tightwad landlord. Even after all of these years, I still remember one episode where Reilly believes he will die within a few days. He has accumulated a substantial fortune, but with death staring him in the face, he decides to splurge on his funeral. When he goes to the funeral home to make all the arrangements for his own funeral, the undertaker is stunned to find Reilly willing to spend so lavishly. After making the initial plans, he asks what the bill will be. When the undertaker tells him the amount, Reilly's money-loving obsession kicks in, and he starts to make cuts. The cuts finally make the funeral less than most poor folks get.

There have always been people like Reilly's character and there always will be. I suppose they're insecure and afraid, deep inside. Remember Mr. Thurston Howell III, from the 1960s "Gilligan's Island?" While a multimillionaire, he needs his Teddy bear so he can sleep. The thing is, egos and insecurities have to have some control. For the last three + decades there has been all sorts of deregulation, permitting some of the most insecure and egotistical among us to ravage the country, in my opinion. Just look at how the income gap has grown during this time. Back when there was more regulation, the rich were still the rich, but there was some balance to the system, now...... Remember, they NEVER stop! It is up to us to put curbs on
them.

* A few years after "The Ghost And Mrs. Muir," Charles Nelson Reilly became a regular participant on the popular "Match Game," which had both a daytime and nighttime version. Years later Reilly publicly said he was gay.  

WORD HISTORY:
Funeral-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it traces back to Latin "funus," which generally meant "funeral, burial service, death." This then produced Latin "funeralis," which meant "matters associated with a burial," which then gave Latin "funeralia," "the rites of burial." This gave French "funérailles," "funeral rites, funeral service." English borrowed the word from French in the mid 1400s. 

GOP-Keynesians In Disguise

This was first published in July 2010, when Barack Obama had been in office about a year and a half. I published it again in July 2011. I edited this article a little on October 19, 2018 (mainly the Word History was expanded).

The Republican economic philosophy began its dominance of the last three decades with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That philosophy, sometimes referred to as "Reaganomics," basically consisted of major tax cuts, large expenditures for a military build-up, spending restraint in other areas of the budget, and lots of deregulation of various sectors of the economy.* Reagan, a former "New Deal" Democrat, who frequently quoted Franklin Roosevelt, took over an economy that was sputtering, to say the least. Inflation was high, interest rates were high, and economic activity was, as I said, sputtering, as the country had gone through a recession in the 1979-80 period. President Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan defeated for the presidency, offered an explanation that much of the problem with the American economy had to do with sky high oil and gasoline prices,** which then drove up prices on everything else. While not given much credence at that time, in more recent years, we've seen how high energy prices do indeed effect EVERYTHING else, and thus, our wallets.

During that era, businesses and workers sought to keep pace with inflation, which only caused prices to rise even more. "Cost of living" increases became a common term in many circles (a term still with us today), especially for people on fixed incomes. To put it bluntly, the situation was just plain ugly!

While Carter and "great presidents" are never mentioned in the same breath, he appointed Paul Volcker to be Federal Reserve Chairman. Volcker was one tough cookie, and he steadily raised interest rates to break the inflation spiral, which it did.*** The situation was so out of hand that it was a very painful time for many Americans, and the country slid into a second, more severe, recession in 1981/82, but Volcker's tough medicine worked, and inflation and interest rates both declined over time.

President Reagan and the Republicans (with help from a number of Democrats) pushed through tax cuts early on in his administration. While just about everyone benefited to some extent, the cuts tilted more toward the upper incomes. Military spending marched upward, including on $500 toilet seats.^ The budget deficit soared! Reagan, like his former hero FDR, criticized his predecessor for having run deficits (FDR had criticized Hoover for the same), then turned around and made any deficits run by Carter look like....ah... peanuts! (I couldn't resist that!)^^ It had been the same with FDR, who outspent Hoover many times over, and that was before World War Two caused huge deficits.

Now to the crux of the matter: I'm not necessarily bashing either Reagan or FDR for their overall spending and budget deficits. What is appalling, however, is how supporters of each choose their "facts," preferring to use their quotes, rather than facts and figures from each president. FDR inherited the Great Depression and Reagan took over as interest rates and tight money were being used to squeeze inflation out of the economy, thus bringing on a severe recession (unemployment reached about 11%, and that didn't count those whose hours were slashed, or those who had to go to part time). What is disturbing is, Reagan called himself a "conservative," and successor Republican presidents, and many Republican officeholders, in general, have also touted that terminology since those times. No doubt about it, in about 1983, the economy under Reagan began to roar forward, even more so in his second term, but it was financed by Keynesian economic policy.....deficit spending; that is, huge budget deficits! Reagan's huge military build up played right into having the economy take off, as tanks, guns, planes and ships were produced in great quantity. Americans actually MANUFACTURED things, and what was usually termed "conventional warfare" was still considered the most likely military action back then, so that tanks, planes and such were seen as essential. The money rippled through the economy, helping lower unemployment dramatically by about the midpoint of Reagan's second term. The combination of tax cuts and huge government outlays helped turn the tide of economic decline.^^^ Reagan claimed credit, all the while bashing government and deficit spending. Does this all sound familiar? I'll let you decide for yourself.

Here are the budget deficits for Republican Ronald Reagan (1982-89), Republican George H.W. Bush (1990-93), Democrat Bill Clinton (1994-2001), and Republican George W. Bush (2001-2009). Remember, the Republicans liked/like to toss around the term "conservative." Just a note, each president's calculation starts with their second year in office, as their predecessors actually present the budget for the first year of an incoming president (with some exceptions, which I'll note). Of course, this means that each president's budget extends, by one year, into the next president's term. (I got these numbers from a variety of sources, but mainly from the Congressional Budget Office, or from sources quoting that office. These are in actual dollar amounts, and are NOT adjusted for inflation; so keep in mind, when you see figures from 20 or more years ago, especially, that the amounts would be much higher, if put into today's values.)

Ronald Reagan ran a cumulative budget deficit from 1982 through 1989 of: One trillion, four hundred nine billion +.

George H.W. Bush ran a cumulative budget deficit from 1990 through 1993 of: One trillion, thirty-five billion, six hundred million.

Bill Clinton ran a cumulative budget surplus from 1994 through 2001 of: Sixty-two billion, eight hundred million.

George W. Bush ran a cumulative deficit from 2002 through 2009 of: Three trillion, five hundred forty-four billion +. (Bush's final budget of 2009 had added money from the incoming Obama Administration, so, based on figures I saw attributed to the Bush presidency, and not disputed, to my knowledge, we can subtract about one hundred ten billion from Bush's cumulative number, giving us: Three trillion, four hundred thirty-four billion +.

George Bush (Senior) inherited a hell of a mess from Reagan, something the conservative spin-meisters and Reagan worshipers seldom, if ever, mention. He actually tried to deal with the deficit, including by raising taxes, and he paid a political price during the Republican nominating process, as conservative Pat Buchanan gave Bush a tussle during many of the Republican primaries and caucuses. In the end, though Bush got the nomination for a second term, he was politically bloodied, and vulnerable. He lost to Bill Clinton in the general election (businessman Ross Perot was on the ballot too).


* Reagan made a point to say things like, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem;" and, "Government needs to get out of the way."

** In certain parts of the country, natural gas prices were also extremely high, and some local gas companies made bad deals for high-priced supplies of gas, which then resulted in high prices for customers.

*** While in his early 80s, Volcker is still around as an economic adviser to President Obama, and in my opinion, the President should have taken Volcker's advice on financial reform much more than he did, instead of listening to the Wall Streeters, Summers and Geithner. Volcker advised that traditional banking be separated from investment banking (essentially a return to the Glass-Steagall Act of the 1930s), which would have stopped the big banks from gambling with deposits in risky ventures, and would have scaled back the big banks, taking a big chunk out of "too big to fail." The President chose to listen more to others with much cozier ties to Wall Street bankers. After Obama was elected and was preparing his cabinet picks, I saw some interviews with Wall Streeters who immediately declared Volcker to be "too old." In my opinion, that was just the line they took, as Volcker obviously struck fear into their greedy little hearts, which told me, "This is the guy we want!"

^ Those who lived through those times will remember the outrageous prices being paid for many items, including screws and numerous things, besides the famous toilet seats. The price of the toilet seats prompted someone (I just forget who) to joke, "It gives a whole new meaning to the word 'throne.' " It should be noted that these abuses were not only on Reagan's watch, but had been going on before he took office. For how long? Who the hell knows?

^^ For those unaware, President Carter had been a Georgia peanut farmer, and this fact brought about many a joke.

^^^ When Obama took office facing plunging economic output and surging unemployment, the Democrats in Congress passed a huge "stimulus bill," with only a couple of Republican votes in the Senate (none in the House, if I remember correctly). To have heard Republicans in Congress tell it, the end was near! While I do feel the bill that passed was not fine-tuned enough, for the Republicans to suddenly act as if they were perfect examples of "budgetary responsibility," was total nonsense! (Added 10-19-18: While the stimulus spending may not have been fine tuned, the idea was to get money into the hands of consumers to spend to prevent a deflationary spiral and the descent into a true worldwide depression, with the U.S. leading the way. Ben Bernanke, a Republican, was chairman of the Federal Reserve at that time, and if I remember right, he made statements about 'dropping money out of planes or helicopters' in order to prevent a downward spiral in prices; that is, deflation.)

WORD HISTORY:
Deficit-This word, distantly related to quite a number of words, including to "face" and to "fact," both Latin-derived words borrowed by English, as well as to "do," a word from the Germanic roots of English, is a prefixed word, with the prefix "de" going back to Indo European "de," which meant, "away from, out of, down from." This Indo European form is also the ancestor of "to" in English, and of the forms of "to" in the other Germanic languages, like German, "zu." The Indo European form gave Latin "de," with the same meanings. The main body of the word "deficit" goes back to Indo European "dhe," which had the notion, "to set, to place, to put." This took on an "f" sound in Latin, and it produced "facere," which meant, "to do, to make, to create." The two forms were combined in Latin to make the verb, "deficere," meaning, "to fail, to lack, to be wanting." The third person singular then produced the Latin noun "deficit," meaning, "a lack of, a deficiency, a shortage." This passed into Latin-based French as "déficit," and English borrowed the word from French, in the latter quarter of the 1700s, primarily as a financial and accounting term.

Compromise Can Be Dangerous

This last week or so has brought us commentaries from a wide variety of people along the political spectrum about the compromise reached between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress regarding the soon to expire "Bush tax cuts;" that is, the tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush and enacted by Congress early in Bush's presidency. The first thing to note is the hypocrisy of both sides. Since Obama took office in January 2009, the Republicans have told Americans how he would bankrupt (is bankrupting) the country. Of course, their hypocrisy in reference to Obama started then, since they chose to ignore the Republican record during the previous eight years of George W. Bush, where a budget surplus turned into flowing red ink, with two wars, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, tax cuts (favoring the wealthy), and the bolstering of security around the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, all done without paying for them. This was just the deficit spending done under one Republican president.*

Now Republicans, instead of being fiscally responsible, have more or less demanded that the "Bush tax cuts" be renewed for every income level, including the super, super, super rich.** Then on top of that, they want the tax on estates left by multimillionaires to be lowered to about 35%.*** I've heard several figures tossed out there, but needless to say, there aren't many Americans who would have to pay the upper rate, something around only 40,000. Let's see....if you have the "minimum" upper level estate of 3 million dollars, the tax would be $1.65 million, and the estate would still have $1.35 million in value. I'll tell you, getting by on that could be difficult! Anybody want to leave me that paltry amount in their will? I'll struggle along on it. Did I mention that all of this tax cutting for the wealthy will go on the national credit card? Yep! All of the money in the entire tax package will be borrowed (much of it probably from the Chinese). So, the country is going to borrow more money to give money to people who have so much money now, they can't spend all of it.

Some economists feel this will all stimulate the economy and help bring down the unemployment rate, which certainly is an admirable goal. Let me tell you what I think will happen. It may help somewhat, but the wealthy will turn their tax "savings" over to their money managers and hedge funds. These ruthless people will then drive up prices on EVERYTHING! There will be additional income transfer from your pockets to the bank accounts of America's elite. In the end, all of us will suffer the consequences, and it will all be done with borrowed money. We hear how "you can't raise taxes, even on the wealthy, in a recession." Well, it hasn't bothered the wealthy one bit in driving up the price of oil and gasoline "in a recession." I'm telling you, in the not too distant future, the $4 to $5 a gallon for gas of a couple of years ago will look "good." The income disparity in the country will not abate, it will grow larger. The estate tax cut will allow more concentration at the very top, where essentially now the top 1% owns more of the national wealth than than the bottom 90%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Folks, if this doesn't bother you, it should, and it will have an impact on your life or the lives of your children or grandchildren. It should scare the livin' hell out of you! As the days have passed, at least some folks, Republicans and Democrats, have looked over this whole thing and they have begun to dislike it.

The Democrats have blasted the Republicans for tax cuts for the rich for years. Now a Democratic president seems to be saying, "I didn't really mean it." Just from what I've heard on some television programs from people with contacts within both political parties, the Republicans were astounded how quickly President Obama gave in to all of their demands, especially on the estate tax. The President at least needed to make Republicans defend, VERY PUBLICLY, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; tax cuts being put on the national credit card bill. The country is going to have to deal with all of this debt. When they come to cut things you or your family or your neighbors need, just remember all of these tax cuts for the wealthy. I've been preaching here for years how the wealthy have absolutely taken over the country. They LOVE Republicans, but they have deep affection for Democrats, as they are not a hell of a lot better. Lest we forget, Republican pushed deregulation (aided by "some" Democrats) of the banking industry was pursued for years, ending with the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act," a gift to wealthy bankers that has brought the country to the abyss, as it is the immediate cause for our current economic problems. It was a compromise signed by President Clinton, a Democrat!****

The time for all of this negotiation about shoving money into the hands of America's wealthy was a month or two BEFORE this last election, not AFTER the election, Mr. President! This guy needs a crash course in politics. (A Word History is below the notes)


* For more information, see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-keynesians-in-disguise.html

** Personally, I favor raising the top level from the $250,000 to like a half million. If you're making a half mil, you're not poor, not that 250 thousand is small change. Keep in mind, those earning the $250,000 (or half million favored by me) would still have their taxes reduced up to that level. It is only on the amount above that they would pay about 3.5% more. Some prominent wealthy folks like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have said taxes on wealthy people like themselves should NOT be extended.

*** Due to a quirk in the law passed during George W. Bush's term, there is NO estate tax right now! It is scheduled to go to a maximum 55% on amounts OVER 3 million dollars in 2011. The tax percentage varies on lesser amounts. So, you must have an estate worth in excess of 3 mil to pay the top rate. Presently, I'm a ways off....ah....quite a ways off! The Obama-GOP Bill would do two things to alter the 2011 estate tax: it would lower the maximum tax to 35% AND raise to $5 million/$10 million (depending upon status) the beginning amount subject to that maximum tax. Again, billionaires like Buffett have said that this is wrong, and that it even goes against the capitalist principle of "meritocracy;" that is, by being able to pass huge sums on to others, those people will not have to be "good at anything," rather they will be fantastically wealthy without having to have proven themselves in the market place.

**** For more on "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-crisis-part-three.html

WORD HISTORY:
Wealth (Weal)-This word, related to "well" (as in, "well off, financially or health wise"), goes back to the Indo European root "wel," which had the notion of "to wish, to desire, to will." This gave Old  Germanic "welon," which meant "well being, welfare (not the government program), possessions, riches" (all things humans "desire"). This then gave Old English "wela/weola," with the same general meaning. This then became "wele" and eventually what is now the archaic "weal." By the 1200s, a "th" was added to the end, perhaps in imitation of "health." By the latter part of the 1300s, a "y" had been tacked onto the ending to mean "people of great means, the rich" (in a collective sense). Close English relative German has "Wohl," a noun, meaning "well being, welfare." In the other Germanic languages, the related words are more closely associated with English "well," or they are used in compounds that match English "welfare" (Norwegian has "velferd," for example, and German has the direct word, "Wohlfahrt").

Deregulation and Us

I came across this article (with link below) and it covers so many things well, that I thought I'd share it with readers here. I know that some financial jargon is difficult to understand, but I also think this article explains the basic flaws in the system in a relatively easy way. In many ways, this is what I've been gradually leading up to in the "Conservatism Unravels" series. (A word history is below the link)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/71265-the-credit-bubble-deregulation-gone-wild

Word History:
Quick-I love this word because of the way the meaning has changed, although with ample connection to the original meaning. Old Germanic had "kwikwaz," which had to do with "living, being alive." This had been derived from the Indo European base "gwej/gwiwo," which also meant "to live, be alive."*** The developing Germanic dialects took the word in some form, and Old Frisian and Old Saxon had "quik," Old Norse had "kvikr," Old High German had "quek," and Old Randy had...let's skip that one. Old English had "cwic," which also meant "living, alive." The notion of "living" grew to mean "lively," which in turn, during the 1400s, took on the meaning of "swift, fast." Modern German has "keck," which means "bold, saucy, forward." Dutch has "kwiek," meaning "sprightly, lively," Swedish has "kvick," which means "rapid." In English we still have the original meaning found in the expression, "the quick and the dead" ("the living and the dead").

***This base also gave words to languages related to English further down the family tree:
Latin had "vivus," Greek had "bio," Russian had "zhivoj," all with connections to "alive, living, lively."

The "Buzz" On Electricity

I read an interesting article in the paper about Ohio's nearing electric crisis. One of the most interesting things about the article was that it mentioned how Ohio businesses pushed for deregulation of electric power several years ago (love that free market philosophy!), but now that the "promised land" of competition and lower rates hasn't materialized, these same folks are now begging for help from the State of Ohio to protect them from the looming higher rates in the "not so promised land." I welcome them to the side of common sense, but I still have to say "I told you so!" And further, the "un-rich" aren't the ONLY ones who turn to government at some level for help!!!

See also:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/10/power-is-with-powerful.html

What To Do About "The Rich?"

So what to do about the wealthy and business interests? (Please don't ask me what to do WITH them, as that would be a temptation I might not be able to resist.) We need some "balance" in the system. We'll never eliminate their tremendous influence(s ), but as I noted in other articles, post-Depression times diminished some of their influence and gave the "un-rich" a better chance in life. The rich were still the rich, but other folks had some influence and protections, too, and it benefited America as a whole, as more people moved into the middle class. To be fair, I would even argue that some of the changes from the New Deal on got out of balance, too, especially by the 1970s, and they had to be corrected (and some things still need to be corrected), but since that time, the system has gotten far out of balance again, and the "un-rich" have actually lost ground in many ways. Again, you have to remember, if you use Medicare and Social Security, what would your life be like without programs like these? These programs, and programs like them, were basically opposed by the wealthy and business interests. They aren't perfect programs, and I've never argued that they are, but where would many folks be without them? Now, we need to move beyond those programs to provide health care for other (non elderly or non poor) Americans, too, for one thing. I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water, as we need some combination of private sector/public sector medical care.

Well, just to prove that I'm not totally one-sided, I heard it mentioned the other day that de-regulation of various products/services hasn't worked. I guess most folks think of oil/gas/nat. gas, airlines, banks, etc. Well, de-regulation DID work, for awhile, but the big boys learned how to consolidate and get around competition, especially in the energy field. Now they've really got us, and they're not about to let go, in my opinion. That's why it takes government to protect the interest of the public at large. On the other hand, from the New Deal until the Great Society and a while later, government grew too large and inefficient in many ways. Again, the flaws of humans. The public isn't stupid, and it (we) saw that there had to be changes, and along came Reagan who effectively articulated the need to curtail government. He got some things, but met heavy resistance on others. He was not the ideologue that Democrats tried to portray, but was much more moderate and was willing to compromise. Now, we've had about 30 years of anti-government sentiment and deregulation (which actually started with none other than Jimmy Carter), and as I said above, the big boys have frequently, but not always, found a way around competition (once again, the flaws of humans; we think we have solved a problem, and we may well do so for awhile, but there's always someone out there figuring how to circumvent the new system), so in my opinion, we've got to reverse course, to try to get the cat back in the bag. Advocates for a particular philosophy, like Reagan, for instance, may come across as being one-sided, but they aren't always like that. They hit hard, but then are willing to accept a more moderate approach. I hit the "rich" and their cohorts hard, because, in my opinion, these are VERY ruthless people, who only understand strength (like Reagan hit the Soviet Union, because they only understood strength). If you blink, that's it; they'll win every time. I may sound harsh at times, but just remember what happened to me, and unfortunately, that was NOT an isolated incident.

We need to keep updating our government programs, because, just like when you put that new lock on your house, and you thought, "Whew! Now we're safe," there are unscrupulous people working day and night to find out how to crack that new lock. Likewise with government programs, there are people, not all of them rich, figuring how to get around the laws and reforms to beat the system.