September 11, 2011

9/11/01 – Ten Years On

I jumped out the window to get to the parking lot

I’m writing this little song on my way down

Never in my life have I felt a heat so hot

I had to get out

 

Such a lovely day to go flying

The sky’s so clear, the sun is shining

Fate has given me wings

Such a terrible funny thing

 

I was gathering up my nerve to ask out Carmen

She glanced out the window

Oh my God

The room It went away, now we’re holding hands

Just not the way I planned

- Living Colour, “Flying”

 

It really was a beautiful day. So many people say that. And it was true. Here in Massachusetts, about 200 miles away, it was one of the most gorgeous days I can remember. That perfect late summer/early fall day. Comfortable with jeans and a short-sleeved shirt. Absolutely beautiful clear skies. My hair was a lot darker and my waistline a lot smaller. My first child, unbeknownst to me, had just been conceived. I was working at a computer storage start-up. I was in the lab trying to get a hardware simulation working properly when i noticed I couldn’t get through to Yahoo! or any news sites. There was a voicemail from my wife that she’d heard a plane hit the World Trade Center. After some confusion a bunch of us went down to our office park’s gym which had tv sets. I arrived to a silent crowd watching two burning towers. We then saw the rest of the day proceed live. The Pentagon, the towers both collapsing, the loss of Flight 93.

It hurt. I lost no one, so my pain was that of a native born New Yorker. Born in Manhattan, family in Brooklyn. I mainly grew up in Connecticut but with my grandparents and other family members in Brooklyn I used to spend most summers in the city. I remember how my grandfather used to take me around the city. He was as true a New Yorker as you could find. Born in New York City, it had always been his home. The longest he was away was during World War II when he served our nation in Italy. When he showed me the city it was like he was showing it off to me. Like he was sharing something very special. To be honest, he wasn’t too crazy about the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. He preferred the classic skyscrapers like the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. He passed away a few years prior to the 9/11 attacks. My brother has told me that was the only time in his life he was glad our grandfather was gone – it would have killed him to have seen his city attacked like that.

Much like the 19th century didn’t end until World War I’s start in 1914, I think the 20th century ended on September 11, 2001.

 

I have mixed feelings on how my nation has reacted to 9/11. It was such a scary feeling. I think we collectively lost our mind in many ways. I agree with the need to bring the perpetrators to justice some of the roads we traveled were dark roads. And I don’t think we have a clear idea as to why we were attacked.

“They hate us for our freedom.” It sounds nice. And I don’t doubt there is some truth to that. But I don’t think you convince people to sacrifice their lives in acts of murder out of a hatred of McDonalds, scantily clad women, and freedom of religion. One of the best works I’ve read on the road that led to 9/11 was Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. It tracks the origin of 9/11 to the birth of Islamic extremism decades ago. It talks about the hatred many in the Islamic world have of their own often corrupt governments, hatred that is easily transferred to the United States which supports many of those regimes (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

It goes without saying that possibly legitimate grievances does not transfer into making it remotely justifiable turning commercial airlines into weapons of mass murder.

 

One of the goals of 9/11 was to draw the United States into conflict with the Islamic world and to drain the United States of its treasure. While I don’t think we’ve handled the conflict in Afghanistan particularly well, I don’t think we could have avoided that. But the diversion into Iraq was absolutely avoidable. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man and the world is a better place without him. But there are many regimes for which that is true and we did not go to war for that purpose but rather in pursuit of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction using intelligence that matched the desired conclusions. And we spent a fortune in treasure – both in American lives and in money. We never paid for either of those two wars – no tax increases, no decrease in other spending. Indeed, we were told the war in Iraq would pay for itself. I don’t think we would be in the dire financial straits we are in if we chose to responsibly deal with the financial costs of the two wars. In that sense, Al-Qaeda achieved one of its major goals.

Note that I don’t exclude myself. I totally bought into the idea that we had to go to war against Iraq. I didn’t think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but I supported the idea of a preemptive war to get weapons of mass destruction that we were told they most certainly had. The experience has made me a lot less believing of assurances from my government.

 

The most painful reaction I think though has been the casual disregard for civil liberties and human rights. From debating whether waterboarding is torture (and in many cases being ok with it anyways) to rendition to debating whether an Islamic Cultural Center can be built near the World Trade Center we’ve traveled some dark roads. Yet there have been Americans who have stood against these tactics.

Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us — every single one of us — knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.

- John McCain, Republican US Senator

 

The debate here isn’t only how to protect the country. It’s how to protect our values.

If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America — even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles.

- Alberto J. Mora, former Navy General Counsel

 

While I’ve covered many facets of 9/11, there are some things that we shouldn’t lose sight of, whatever our differences might be in how we reacted to it as a nation. The United States of America in no way deserved to be attacked that day. None of those people flying or going to work “had it coming” in any way. Also, there were some amazing acts of heroism that day. People in the Twin Towers who shepherded their neighbors to the ground. Firefighters who charged into those buildings to save lives. The passengers and crew of United Flight 93 who chose to sacrifice their lives rather than let the terrorists score yet one more victory. These were ordinary Americans who woke up that morning totally unaware that they would be answering the call to heroism and that many would pay with their lives. They followed a tradition of the best of America that goes all the way back to George Washington.

Leave a Comment

Filed under history

Tagged as

August 18, 2011

Rebutting “Why Doesn’t Warren Buffett Voluntarily Pay More Taxes?”

In the August 14, 2o11 New York Times there is an op-ed by Warrenn Buffett entitled Stop Coddling the Super-Rich. It is an article well worth the few minutes of your time it will take to read. To summarize, Mr. Buffett argues:

  • Due to the way the tax code is structured, the mega-rich pay a tax rate of 15% on their earnings.
  • Many of the mega-rich pay a negligible amount in payroll taxes – sometimes nothing.
  • The argument that higher tax rates would discourage investment and job creation does not match what actually occurred from 1980 to 2000.

I have seen it argued, from blogs to newspaper editorials to a response from my state representative that if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, nobody is stopping him from doing so. He can just write a check.

I find that argument to be nonsensical. Mr. Buffett’s point is largely that the mega-rich are paying a tax rate on their income that is less than many of those the middle class pay. I pulled up some of my recent tax returns and have found that for some years I did indeed pay a higher tax rate on my total unadjusted income than the mega-rich did. So the question to ask is this: is it just that the very wealthiest in our society are taxed at a rate lower than the rate that them middle class is taxed at?

Yes, of course Mr. Buffett could write a check. But our tax code would still enshrine the ability of billionaires to pay taxes at ludicrously low rates.

There’s an argument as to whether the mega-rich should be made to make a greater sacrifice than that of the poor and middle class. I would submit that a reasonable starting point would be for them to make an equal sacrifice.

1 Comment

Filed under economics, politics, taxes

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 14, 2011

Trivializing Women’s Health Care

There’s been a bit of debate on the recent announcement by the Obama Administration’s recent announcement that insurers will be required to cover a variety of women’s health issues. To quote the Chicago Tribune:

Under new rules proposed Monday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, insurers would be required to provide contraceptive services, breast-feeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening and counseling, regular “well woman” visits, counseling about HIV and sexually transmitted infections, screening for gestational diabetes, and several other preventive services without charging women any copayments.

- Chicago Tribune, U.S. to require birth control without copay, August 2, 2011

The reaction from Republican office-holders has been somewhat muted though Conservative pundits have been less shy. Former Bush Administration Press Secretary Dana Perino stating if you can afford a five dollar frappuccino at Starbucks you can afford a five-dollar copay. Below find The Daily Show’s take on this.

In addition to the arguments made by Jon Stewart, it is worth pointing out that the days of the five-dollar copay have been over for ages.  For example the birth control my wife’s doctor has prescribed for her costs us $350 per year or approximately $30 per month. (That’s assuming mail order – getting from the local pharmacy would cost us double that.) It is worth noting that my company’s benefits plan is among the more generous ones.

Moreover, the lack of contraceptive use is a strong component in the number of unplanned pregnancies. For example, theNational Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has determined that approximately 70% of pregnancies in unmarried women in their twenties are unplanned. The use of some form of contraception is vital for the prevention of  unplanned pregnancy – the Tribune article indicated above cites a study that indicates that 95% of unplanned pregnancies involved no or inconsistent use of birth control. And the rate of sexual activity among teens and young adults is high enough that an increase in regular-contraceptive use among teens can dramatically reduce the rates of teen pregnancy.

While there are moral and religious considerations, 99% of sexually active women have used some form of birth control. (Source: Centers for Disease Control — Unplanned Pregnancy Prevention: Contraception) To hear the pundits talk there seems to be a suggestion that birth control is used for purposes of engaging in promiscuous casual encounters. It ignores the fact that many families choose to have some control over the times their families grow and the sizes of their family. And it ignores medical and financial reasons why a family may forego additional children – for example, after every pregnancy my wife’s depression grew worse to the point we are very hesitant to have more children.

Is it wrong for your tax money or insurance premiums be used for such purposes, especially if you find them immoral? I have some sympathy for this objection but this seems to be something difficult to avoid. I would imagine there is not a single taxpayer for whom every use of federal dollars is viewed as morally appropriate. Should tax dollars have been used to pay for wars of questionable justice? For executions? The best recourse to this issue would be at the ballot box. However, as I said at the opening of this posting, there have been few elected officials who have come out strongly against the elimination of these copays. I would imagine the frequency of their use is a strong reason behind this.

It is also worth noting that the elimination of contraception copays is only a part of this. This also covers breast-feeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening and counseling, etc. I have heard some pundits view counseling as a step on a slippery slope to providing pedicures!

I leave you with the Colbert Report’s take on this issue. (Warning – not to be viewed by those who will be offended by watching Stephen Colbert miming a Tyrannosaurus Rex attempting to put on a condom.)

Leave a Comment

Filed under healthcare, politics, religion

Tagged as , , , , , ,

July 31, 2011

A Lost American Decade?

We used to talk about the Japanese and lost decade. We’ll look at them as a role model. They did better than we’re doing. this is going to go on. I have nobody I know who thinks the unemployment rate will be below 8 percent at the end of next year. With the spending cuts it might be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. We’re having a debate in Washington, all about, ‘Gee, we’ll make the economy worse, but will we make it worse on 90 percent of the Republicans’ terms or 100 percent of Republicans’ terms?’ The answer is 100 percent.

- Paul Krugman on ABC’s This Week, July 31, 2011

I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman. A decade ago he argued the Bush tax cuts were a recipe for decimating the federal budget. He also warned that the housing market was heading for a horrific crash.

Mr. Krugman is now arguing, as he did back in 2008 and 2009, that failing to increase government spending to stimulate the economy will lead to a prolonged stagnant decade.

What is almost certain to emerge out of the debate on the debt ceiling is some arrangement which is solely based around cuts and does nothing to increase revenue. Unlike some progressives to the left of me, I am not against modifications to social programs such as social security and Medicare. Means testing and re-examination of retirement age are  reasonable things to do. And if there is waste in the budget – real waste, real inefficiency, then it is certainly reasonable to trim it.

But it seems foolish to refuse to consider new initiatives to stimulate the economy or to raise additional government revenue. I’d like to address some of the arguments against these ideas.

One of the most common is it would be foolishness to increase taxes on corporations and the very wealthy or, as they now seem to be referred to in Congress, “the job creators”. The reasoning behind this is that that would cause them to be unable to hire additional people as they suffer above and beyond their already crushing tax burden. Unfortunately, it is clearly demonstrable from a look at unemployment figures they are not hiring. As far as the argument of a crushing tax burden, the United States has as percentage of GDP, one of the lowest tax burdens in the world – and one that has been going down (source – Reuters – Chart of the day: America’s small tax revenues).  Corporations have proven very proficient in using tax loop holes to keep their tax burden down, yet even the act of closing those loopholes has been rejected by the Tea Party Congress.

 

What about the argument that people just need to get off of unemployment and get a job? That we need to cut unemployment benefits. That sounds nice. Yet given the unemployment rate and the fact that  many companies are refusing to even consider unemployed candidates that argument seems a non-starter to me. And dollars spent on the unemployed tend to go right back into the economy, paying for groceries, mortgages, etc.

 

The argument you can’t spend yourself out of a recession or depression? The argument goes that the Great Depression was not ended by government programs like the New Deal but rather by World War II. As many will point out, whether that is true or not – and there is a lot of debate on that – World War II, economically, was a massive government program. But regardless, the problem we are faced with, as was faced in the Great Depression, is people have needs, needs that without a job become difficult or impossible to meet. Whether creating jobs or paying unemployment will end a recession is in some ways besides the point if doing so allows people to meet their needs.

 

It is worth remembering how we got here. During the presidency of George W. Bush the United States entered into two wars and added an unfunded prescription drug program to Medicare. While so doing, the United States also cut tax rates, thereby bringing Treasury revenue to its lowest percentage of the GDP it has been in fifty years. To claim we do not have a revenue problem is dishonest. We made a deliberate choice to have a revenue problem and a bearing the fruits of that choice.

 

Is shared sacrifice needed. Yes, absolutely. I’m not in the richest 1% but my family isn’t doing horribly, even with my wife currently out of work. So go ahead, raise tax rates to what they were back in 2000. Go ahead and close corporate loopholes. To put a recovery on the backs of those who are suffering the most, which is just what is being proposed, is an act of unchristian cruelty. Anyone who supports suck measures needs to forfeit the right to label the United States a Christian nation.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under economics, politics

Tagged as , , , , , ,

July 25, 2011

Yearning for a Default

In this debt-ceiling debate it seems proper to assign blame to “both sides”. My views are certainly partisan but I really can’t fathom how one could say it is not the Republican Party – specifically the Tea Party wing of the party that is pushing the United States closer and closer to a debt default.

The newest plan from Senator Reid cuts 2.7 trillion dollars from the debt. It does so largely from troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, something Cantor’s plan did as well. It does not cut entitlements, something shared with Boehner’s plan. The talking points released by Boehner’s  staff specifically advertised his plan does not cut entitlements. This led to ThinkProgress’ headline After Boehner Releases Plan That Doesn’t Cut Entitlements, He Rejects Reid Plan For Not Cutting Entitlements.

It’s rather horrifying to watch this. The Tea Party wants a balanced budget amendment – one that beyond requiring a balanced budget specifically caps spending and makes it difficult to raise taxes. They lack the votes to come even close to accomplishing this. So the strategy seems to be threaten to destroy the country unless they get their way. I truly believe if the United States defaults on its debt obligations twenty years later we’ll look at this as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, self-inflicted wound on our nation. A week ago I didn’t think default was likely. Even now I have a hard time believing that Congress would allow this to happen. But the evidence keeps piling on that there is no deal which will satisfy the Tea Party wing in the House. So is default the goal?

1 Comment

Filed under economics, politics

Tagged as , , , ,