Capitalism

The Conservative Right likes to see themselves as the guardians of Capitalism. Liberals, in the worst light, are viewed as Socialists at the very least and, when tempers get really riled up, Communists. The trouble with the Conservative Right's position is that they neither define nor justify the particular form of Capitalism which they are guarding, and Capitalism can have many forms depending on the character of the people involved.

In the most basic sense, Capitalism is simply an economic system in which there is private ownership of the means of production. At the time of our nation's founding, the economy was agrarian so the principal means of production was land and certain tools involved in farming the land. The majority of Capitalists were independent farmers, the very population upon which Jefferson rested his utopian concept of a democratic government. With so much in common, people would be able to come together to participate in government and solve their shared problems.

Of course, even in the infancy of our nation, there were already economic factors that, as they developed, would topple such a utopia. There was already an industrial-agricultural split between New England and the South. And Southern Capitalism depended upon slavery. In the North, the means of production was moving toward the tools and institutions of industry and away from mere land and cottage tools. In the era of industrial production, Capitalism took on an entirely different appearance. Since the means of production was becoming factories and large-investment machines, Capitalists were far fewer in number and the remainder of the population increasingly turned to laboring for their means of survival. As Marx saw it, Capitalist society became increasingly divided between the Bourgeoisie (Capital owning class) and the Proletariat (laboring class). 

The notion of "means of survival" is interesting in the context of this discussion. In a strictly agrarian society the "means of production" is equivalent to the "means of survival". That equivalence continues for the Capitalist in an industrial society but the remainder of the population is alienated from the means of production so that its survival becomes contingent. Capital is a means of survival for the majority of people only in the contingency that they are able to sell their labor at a price that can sustain them. Today, the vast majority of Americans depend on selling their labor in order to survive. While 80% of Americans were still small farmers in the late 19th Century, the percentage of small farmers now is so small that the US Census has dropped the category as inconsequential. But selling our labor depends entirely upon the management of Capital and that means an enormous division of power. Jeffersonian democracy is a thing of the past. However one wishes to characterize the American government today, it is no longer a coming together of equals to solve shared problems. It is far more like an "oligarchy in democratic clothing".

In fact, the system of industrial Capitalism places an enormous moral burden on a small number of people for the welfare and survival of the majority of their countrymen has become their responsibility. That is the sad truth --- "sad" because with only a few exceptions Capitalists have largely ignored this burden. The situation is rather like the situation of the doctor Plato describes whose true role is nurturing the health of patients but who becomes so involved in the making of money that his patients' health suffers. Capitalists of the late 19th Century enhanced their profits by buying labor at the lowest possible price which was established by the most meagre sense of survival --- the simple ability to get up the next day and work again. Anyone injured in the process or becoming ill or refusing the indignity could easily be replaced. So long as the aim of the Capitalist is simply maximizing profits all kinds of terrible things can happen.

I see no problem with the Capitalist system of economy if the moral burden is understood. That burden is to produce products of superior quality for delivery to consumers and to contribute to the well being and survival of the people who contribute to production by selling their labor. But this burden requires that Capitalists focus on other matters than pure profit taking. The quality of products is a simple matter of honesty. Caring for the well being of those who work for you is a less simple but still clear matter. The means of production are useless without the help of those who labor; hence, the welfare of those who labor is an obligation that must be met. It is not a matter of simply buying labor at the minimum wage possible; it is a matter of functioning as part of a cooperative community.

Three More Years

Congress finally realized that going over the debt ceiling cliff was going to do too much damage to the country and they pulled a last-moment deal. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not much of a "deal" because it merely sets us up for another crisis in January and February. The Republican Storm Troopers will again tie some piece of their "wish list" to continuing national solvency. If it is not the Affordable Care Act, then it will be Social Security or Medicare or Education or the EPA. Since they do not have enough legislative power they will continue to blast at the front door by holding the nation hostage when it comes to running government, paying thousands of government workers, and borrowing with excellent credit. Can we really take this for three more years?

Basically, a small faction of the Republicans want to crush national government and they came very very close to doing it this time. The irony is that these are people who have been elected to "govern." But instead of governing, they have done everything possible to cripple government. When government shuts down, food inspections stop; but food inspections have already been critically limited simply by picking away at funding. Likewise for just about every government program. 

The money is there, of course, if Republicans would allow even modest increases in tax revenues. But, of course, their battle cry is "no new taxes!" Meanwhile, the super-rich continue to get richer and the rest of the population gets poorer. It is, indeed, the super-rich, like the Koch Brothers, who are behind the Tea Party and other right-wing conservative groups. What they want is their own little playground in which they can do anything they want without interference from government.

This is by no means the first time in the history of the United States that wealthy Capitalists have taken control of government --- national and local --- but periods like the late 19th Century have never been economically productive or produced a prosperous middle class. I hope that we can avoid re-living that history.

Hostage!

The majority of Americans have become hostages of a minority, what we can broadly call the Tea Party. Basically, this group of people wants to destroy the Federal government and will do just about anything to accomplish their wish. Unfortunately, because the House of Representatives is now dominated by these people and because the House holds the National purse strings, the majority of Americans have to suffer their whims. Also, unfortunately, there is no way out of this situation because the districts out of which these representatives are elected have been so maliciously organized that they cannot be defeated. I don't believe this was ever anticipated in all the debates over the Constitution. 

What I do not know is whether the Tea Party is simply an extreme version of Libertarianism or whether they support state and local governments (which, I assume, Libertarians do not do). If the Tea Party does support state and local government, then it seems to me that a happy solution would be to simply exempt those states from any interaction with Federal government and wish their state governments "god speed." This, in fact, would be a benefit to the rest of us because I believe it has been shown that these same states currently require more Federal income than they contribute to the Federal government. This might be facilitated by combining these states with the Republic of Texas. We might coalesce into something called "Washoregonia," a Pacific Rim economy. British Columbia might even join us. 

I have to confess that I do not understand Libertarianism. What I see in it is a hatred of government and a hope for a mythic state of complete individual freedom. But I always thought that Locke and the rest solved the "freedom" issue a long time ago by showing that we are bound to the protection of all our possessions unless we come together into some kind of contractual understanding that institutionalizes the protection of property. Perhaps that's why they like guns so much because they think they can do it alone. 'Alone' is a key word here, I guess. Government IS the possibility of collective action. But if you think that "going it alone" is paradise, then I guess that collective action doesn't mean much. But I don't know what "going it alone" means when it comes to repairing the roads, inspecting the food supply, and keeping airplanes from colliding with one another.

I do wish some Libertarians would explain how the Libertarian paradise would work on a practical day-to-day basis. What I read in their web sites is mostly negative --- what they do not want --- and very little positive. 

SYRIA

Obama and Kerry are both very intelligent men. Why then are they both out beating the drums for military action in Syria. Don't they know what an entirely foolish idea that is? What is the ruling psychology in the US today? For it surely is "psychology" rather than reason. 

First of all, if Obama believes we are obligated to do something, we have to remember that it is Obama himself who put us under that obligation. He is the one who foolishly drew the poison-weapons line in the sand. He didn't have to do that. And didn't he realize he was creating the very mess we are now in? 

"The world" may have decided to ban chemical weapons after the horrors of the First World War, but "the world" no longer seems to feel that way --- at least Russia and China don't seem to care about it. Why can't we let the world figure this out. No one really appointed the US as the chief of police for the world.

Then, look at the practical side of all this. "Limited strikes" means that we are just going to go and mess around with Syria and try to avoid too much damage. But that means we will just piss them off and they will do even more to bate us. Once we have committed anything there we will be unable to hold back. So where is this all going? The first strike means we are at war with Syria. How do we plan to end that war? Just back out after a little hand slapping? Very unlikely. 

The IRS

Almost no one likes paying taxes and almost all of us know one story or another about how dangerous the IRS can be if you get on their wrong side. Well, now the dear junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has the solution. In his TV advertisement he proposes that we follow him in abolishing the IRS. What could be better? Right? All our troubles gone in one swift blow.

Well, not quite so fast. What does Cruz really mean or what does he really intend to accomplish. The IRS is only the institution which collects Federal taxes. Does Cruz mean to abolish taxes or merely cripple the system of collecting taxes? Congress sets tax rates and also legislates the minute details of exemptions and favors that haunt the system. It isn't the fault of IRS. Granting their may be issues in the way IRS interprets or administers tax collections, but someone must serve this function if taxes are to be collected at all.

Does Cruz actually believe that Congress can create a "simple and fair" tax system for the US and that Americans will just mail their checks to the Treasury voluntarily? He's got to be kidding! Look at the lengths to which people and corporations go now to avoid or minimize payment while the IRS looks on and real penalties are possible. I suppose what is really behind this is the standard Republican agenda of impoverishing the Federal government. The tactic is not to bother with legislation that limits or better defines government powers but rather to just make it impossible for government to exercise its powers by starving it. 

So Cruz's TV advertisement --- just another cynical political ploy, standard among Republican parlor tricks --- make something sound really sweat but don't let on what the actual consequences might be. 

Is Privacy Possible?

While the Constitution does not mention privacy as such, many people would like to believe that it is included in "the pursuit of happiness" in our Declaration of Independence, while others might argue that privacy is essential to liberty. You cannot promise liberty without implicitly promising privacy. Property that is privately owned is protected by law, and the Constitution, as amended, prohibits "unlawful searches and seizures." But the most abstract and insecure form of privacy is "personal privacy" --- essentially, the ownership of one's life story (everything that one does) as a unique possession that only he/she can freely share with others. 

Ever since the attack on New York's World Trade Center, September 11, 2001, both the Federal government and state and local governments have moved in significant ways to monitor people's activities both foreign and national. So now we have a young man, Edward Snowden, who prides himself as being a "whistleblower" by revealing details of current Federal surveillance practices. Republicans, under whom most of these measures began, are being smugly quiet, while they let Democrats try to defend NSA practices and take the heat. 

I do not know enough about any of this to make an interesting or important judgement of my own. What I do know is that every time anything like the Boston Marathon bombing happens, the people want to know right away why government agencies failed to see this coming and weren't there to prevent it. There are two sides to this coin and people need to be honest about whether they are willing to sacrifice some privacy for the security they want. But I think the present discussion highlights an even more important fact and that is that privacy may be impossible in today's world anyway. 

First of all, we give away portions of our privacy every time we enroll in any new program --- shopping, banking, credit, media, you name it.  All that material is put out there in digital files that can be accessed by all kinds of people whom we do not know and have no desire to know. Then, of course, when we use our credit cards or our Vons shopping cards, everywhere we go and everything we purchase is part of the great digital record. Vons knows I have both a cat and a dog and which foods I prefer. Hence, I get promotional offers aimed at my pets. If I am traveling, my credit card companies know where I am and what I am doing. More promotional offers. Then, of course, when I use any digital medium --- my cell phone, my iPad, my computer --- I am leaving a huge trail of data behind me at all levels of our very complex communication systems. Usually for very good reasons, that data is not erased for some time but lives in various backup systems. Of course, if I walk out my door, there is usually some surveillance camera on some commercial building that records my passage and holds it in a file for some period of time.

The issue here is not so much whether all of this "sharing" of my personal privacy is acceptable but it is who looks at this data and why. In effect is it such a big deal that NSA collects huge amounts of this data on everyone. The deal breaker is how they choose to look at it and why. As a breach of privacy is the NSA scanning my phone texts any worse than Google learning how to aim specific commercial messages at me by monitoring what I search for day-in-day-out. 

In our age, a person can secure his/her privacy only at great expense and with a whole lot of imagination. Know where surveillance cameras are located and avoid them. Do not use a personally registered cell phone, only cheep one-time units you can throw away. Arrange to hide the identity of your computing devices somehow. Don't use shopping or bank cards. Go cash only. Get out of Facebook or whatever. It's a very different style of life! What this means is that, in the present style, we have all accepted huge losses in personal privacy as part of the cost.

Health Report

I decided to break with the usual political stuff and publish one report on my health issues. Enjoy!

Back in March after a longish day of recovering our vegetable garden --- howing weeds, raking in fertilizer, laying down top soil, heaving bags, and planting new plants, I experienced about a week of bad pain in my shoulder and neck. Muscle relaxant took the pain away immediately after I saw my doctor but I then realized that I had lost a lot of mobility in my right arm, similar to when I tore my rotator cuff. Doctor said I should go to physical therapy so we started working on it. However, the therapist kept suggesting that it was caused by a pinched nerve rather than further tear in my rotator cuff. Eventually that lead to an MRI on my neck and that was when things got exciting. 

It turned out that I had two disks that were so badly herniated that they were squeezing my spinal cord to say nothing of the nerve roots that radiate out into the arms. Each of the disks above and below were also bad but not as bad yet. There were also bone spurs on the front of my spine that have been causing some difficulty swallowing bulky objects. Given the MRI data (you wouldn't believe the views that you can nowget with MRI techniques!) the doctors were amazed that I was just having numbing in my fingers at night and the loss of mobility in my arm. 

What made us go ahead with major surgery (an important step for someone who had never had surgery in his life) was the obvious fact that further deterioration in the neck could have grave consequences for the rest of my body to say nothing about further and permanent problems with my arms and hands. Any way, we sought the advice of two surgeons and chose the one my doctor recommended --- Ali Mesiwala (do any Anglo kids ever become talented surgeons now-a-days!). We decided to go ahead with this as fast as possible on the advice of the first surgeon, which meant canceling two lovely trips that we had been looking forward to. One doctor, looking at the MRI while I signed consent forms for the procedure, said he was amazed I could use my hands at all!

In the actual procedure, the surgeon makes an incision in the front of your neck and clamps aside your esophagus and wind pipe as well as various muscles and blood vessels. Then, using a microscope, he removes the disk materials, cleans the surfaces, inserts spacers with bone materials, grinds off bone spurs in the front, and screws on a titanium panel involving all of the disks affected. In my case, he removed four disks and attached five vertebrates. The incision is stitched up with absorbable thread and a liquid, insoluble bandage is painted over it. This took about 1 1/2 hours though I was completely out for about four hours. He had an emergence back injury on a young woman that he had to sneak in before me. All in all he was doing procedures from 7:30 AM on Monday until 4:00 AM on Tuesday. I was in my room by about 11:00 PM.

Recovery is primarily overcoming any nausea from the anesthetic (I had none), dealing with pain (I had very little), and regaining your ability to swallow and speak. Swallowing is going along though I continue on a soft diet. I am still pretty hoarse. All of that is from the trauma of being pushed aside for access to the cervical spine. The long-term recovery assumes enough bone growth to fuse the vertebrates behind the titanium panel. They look for that happening in about three months --- hence the hard cervical collar. No bending down, lifting, or twisting and worst of all no driving. It's going to be a long summer!

So that's about all I can say at this point, but I feel very fortunate to have had a fantastic surgeon and I feel very fortunate that my immediate recovery has gone so well thus far. Thanks to everyone for all the good wishes!

Memorial Day

Well, we have just passed another Memorial Day and there are some things that need to be said. 

The day went by with all of the usual devotion and honoring of the men and women who have given their lives in service to our country. I have no problem with that. Indeed, there are many who did not give their lives but gave almost everything else. They are veterans who served and came home --- some of them with terrible traumas that haunt them and others with terrible wounds that will affect their lives forever. All of them performed their service through our military organizations and we owe them our praise and our gratitude.

What I do have a problem with --- and it is a very big problem --- is the real-world context in which all of this service was required. Our society has become quite expert at channeling the ways we think. Hence, we spend a great deal of time being devoted to "patriotism" and "heroism" and very little time thinking about the actual mechanics of war. This was impressed upon me quite profoundly about a decade ago when I spent a week in Washington, D.C. I spent the week walking throughout Washington's numerous monuments. Most of them, interestingly enough, are devoted to wars. All of them display patriotic texts of devotion to freedom, liberty, and the like. None of them suggest the dark side of why wars happen. Nor do any of them acknowledge the enormous losses of property and civilian life. Have you ever actually looked at pictures of Europe after the end of World War II?

What it actually comes down to is the fact that governments declare wars and governments conscript their young to serve in their military forces. But who are these governments? Is our own government functioning as we would wish, right now? Are we ready to serve such a dysfunctional government if it comes to that? 

What seems clear is that wealth controls our government --- certainly not "the people" --- so why should the people serve the whims of wealth?

When we think of patriotism, we need to think carefully and clearly about whose interests are really involved in the call to patriotism. There are, of course, the usual slogans of "keeping us free" but what "us" are we really being asked to keep free. More often than not our patriots are dying for the interests of a small minority of billionaires who could actually care less for their "patriots" or the country as a whole. That is the sad truth about war.

In my 77 years, I have know WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Iraq War, war in Afganistan, and the Bush Iraq War. Only WWII was a "popular war" in the sense that heroic young people signed up to serve because the freedom of our world had genuinely been threatened by dreadful dictators. The rest have been ideological. Perhaps it is acceptable for people to die in the name of ideologies, but we should definitely check which ideologies are involved first. As we said during the first Iraq War, "if Kuwait 's principal product had been broccoli we would never have gone to war." Why is the whole of the Middle East so "important"? It is oil of course. And what proportion of Americans profit from interests in oil? And in what ways were they connected to the Bush Administration? 

We should put as much attention into researching these questions as we put into praising the heroism of our service personnel. In actuality that is a real way of honoring them.

Rights and Responsibilities

The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution definitively states that citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms." The rationale for this right is, of course, the importance of having an effective militia in case of external threats to the nation. The amendment is unique in its presentation of a rationale, but people are fond of ignoring that, as well as being fond of ignoring the relevance of a militia to the present-day situation of gun ownership. 

What the amendment does not in any way suggest or support is that citizens have a blind right, that is, a right to keep and bear their arms anonymously. Yet that is very much at the heart of the present argument over gun control. When we examine the fate of our several rights, we discover that almost none of them imply a lack of responsibility in the exercise of that right. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are all moderated by various cases of responsible exercise. You may not intentionally defame a person in the press; and you may not yell, "bomb," in an airplane. People who possess these rights are expected to use them responsibly. 

While we do not have a right to own and drive an automobile (being somewhat ahead in time to the Constitution), I think there are some good analogies to be found here. When I purchase a car, it is registered in my name along with contact information. The car bears definite identification numbers attached to my ownership. When I drive the car, I am expected to have a valid license, demonstrating that I am capable of driving and that I have knowledge of my responsibilities. If the car is used irresponsibly either by me or by another person, I am responsible for damages as the registered owner. 

Now, firearms are also dangerous and can cause damage. I see no reason whatsoever why the owner of a firearm should not take responsibility for its use. And for that matter, training and licensing would be a good thing. 

The 2nd amendment does not provide that keeping and bearing arms is without responsibility for their use!

Do Libertarians Really Want This Stuff?

Where are Libertarians and Right-wing Republicans going with their sustained attacks on the Federal government? Do they really want the consequences of these attacks? Everything the Obama Administration proposes is supposedly an attack on freedom. They want pure freedom! Isn't that actually anarchy? 

Libertarians seem to want a State of Nature where everyone can do whatever they wish. Wonderful as that may sound, political philosophers from Hobbes and Locke onward agree that the State of Nature always leads to a State of War --- and in Hobbes's words to a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. There is no "society" in such a world --- that is, no structure or system of behavior that you can rely on. Perhaps there are family bonds that moderate behavior, but outside of family you are on your own. In such a world you spend so much time guarding your property and yourself that you have little time to enjoy your "freedom" if you want to call it that. 

The foundation of civil society is an agreement to live under rules of behavior and only in that situation are we truly free --- free to enjoy driving safely on a highway, knowing that most people will stop and yield for a red light or a stop sign. I don't have to stay at home with a loaded shotgun to keep people from stealing my computer --- being free to leave the house unguarded. The cost of my freedom is, of course, the rules and how we come by them. Government is that cost. So when Libertarians refuse to pay that cost, we actually lose our freedom rather than gaining it.

What Right-wing Republicans seem to want is no Federal government but, in its place, wildly powerful state governments. The states should decide every matter. But didn't we try that once a couple hundred years ago? And when it comes to enjoying pure freedom is state regulation any more satisfying than Federal regulation? Apparently not, because when it comes to states and women's rights, it would seem that freedom is the last thing on their minds. Frankly, the states are more susceptible to corruption than the Federal government.

I love California and I have lived here for 55 years, but I still consider myself an American --- that is to say, a national citizen. There are definite standards of behavior that I want to expect no matter where I am in this country. I do not want to plan my travel route according to which states I feel comfortable passing through. In fact, if the "red states" have their way, I will probably have to travel through Canada in order to see my friends on the East Coast.

Come on, is all this just ridiculous hatred of having a multi-racial president who is a Democrat, or do you guys really want to go down this hole?

Getting Ahead

Our conservative friends (not that we have very many) are all opposed to social welfare because they view recipients as simply lazy people who prefer free-loading versus making a real living. Many of these people experienced hard times themselves back in the '40s and '50s when they were just starting out and they worked their way out of it. The problem is that you could do that in the '40s and '50s. But today there is a Great Wall that keeps people poor. The conservatives love to believe that America is still a land of opportunity. But they have no understanding of how little opportunity there is for very large numbers of people in America today. 

The cost of living today is staggering and ordinary wages simply have not kept up with it. I can remember moving to Berkeley in order to attend graduate school in the late '50s. I brought with me $300 in savings and my stipend for being a teaching assistant was going to be $3000 per year. I had a Ford which had cost me $150. I rented a nice room with kitchen privileges for $50 a month. My mother had taught me to keep a journal of income and expenses so I can prove that I spent little more than $30 per month on food. Actually, I lived quite well for three years in Berkeley and even got married and supported my wife through the final year. When I took my position as assistant professor at Harvey Mudd College in 1961, my salary was $6200 per year. My wife and I rented small houses in Claremont for between $150 and $350 per month; my wife attended Pomona College; and we began raising two children. A family could live on a single person's income.

Almost none of this is true today. Even a room goes for $900 per month or more. And then there is transportation, fuel, insurance, clothing, food, and entertainment. If a person is making under $20,000 per year, he/she is in poverty, which means that assistance is required just for survival and there is no getting ahead. Repeat: there is no getting ahead. This person is locked into that situation for good. The only way out is to get better employment but how will he/she do that when there is neither time nor money to invest in improvement.

Furthermore, when we look at the distribution of wealth in this country today, what we see is even more staggering. The amount of wealth possessed by the upper 20% is so huge compared to the lower 80% that commerce and employment are affected. The 20% simply cannot spend enough of their wealth to support commerce; and the 80% don't have enough to spend. The American economy is now in a situation that is very close to the economy of France prior to the French Revolution. Profitable business cannot depend upon a middle or lower class that has nothing so it depends only on providing lavish goods for the highest wealth. But that does not go very far toward creating a real economy. 

Unfortunately, the 1% of Americans who possess ridiculous wealth also possess the power of government and prevent any attempt to force them to pay more in revenue. Hence, wealth will not be re-distributed in America for a long time to come, and that means that the American economy is likely to remain stagnant for decades. The whole notion of a "national economy" is essentially meaningless when the distribution of wealth is divided so radically as it is today.

More on Guns in America

Gun-related violence in America is amazingly high compared to other "civilized" nations of the world. Why is that?

It is tempting to say that we need more restrictions on gun possession, but I am really not sure that is a practical answer, unless we want to go all the way and literally disarm Americans and scrap the 2nd Amendment. While I know some people who would like to do that, I don't think that's going to happen. 

In the movie "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore noted that Canadians own as many guns as Americans but have far fewer gun-related cases of violence. What's going on? we ask. The answer, I think, is Moore's analysis of violence in all aspects of American life. We are, in fact, a violently competitive society. There are multitudes of ways in which people can act with violence toward one another and simply shooting them with guns is only one of the ways. We can start by humiliating others wherever possible. Our youngsters quickly learn how to bully vulnerable kids, and many adults have never learned to rise above that kind of behavior. Our love of violence is so obviously out there that you can't go to the movies without seeing previews of the latest violent films to be shown. And these are films that offer no redeeming values other than just streaming us through endless violence from beginning to end.

I am afraid that the real reason behind gun-related violence in America is just Americans themselves. They are a violent people and, when a gun is handy in a violent moment, they just shoot their ways through it. This is not going to be solved through background checks or gun-safety instruction or gun-licensing. The only solution is a transformation of the American psyche, and that's probably less likely than getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. There are obviously mental health issues of importance, but American violence way outstrips cases of mental health illnesses. 

Yet, do we have the option, today, of just doing nothing? I think not. Understanding Americans as violent people, we need to try even harder to keep instruments of extreme violence less available. We could start, it seems to me, by requiring gun owners to license their guns and maintain them under the supervision of local law enforcement. An aspect of this in my mind would be that gun owners are required to keep guns under lock-and-key (or with reliable trigger locks) so that unauthorized people cannot access them and the owners themselves have to think a few times before using them in violent ways. If a person wants to have an assault-style weapon under his/her 2nd Amendment right, he/she ought to be assigned to the local National Guard unit for training and the weapon should be housed in the Armory for appropriate Guard use. That seems to be what the 2nd Amendment is all about. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about arming Americans to assault or defend themselves against their own government. It states that a "well regulated militia" is its purpose, and militia's were vital to the newly-declared independent states in fending off the British Army. "Well regulated" means trained and working in the service of the state.

Here We Go Again

Once more, the debt ceiling must be raised or our Federal government will have to grind to a halt. Historically, this has rarely been a big deal. The debt ceiling has been raised as a matter of course. It has only recently become a big deal since the Republican Party decided to use it as a hostage in order to try cutting government programs.

Republicans, especially their Tea Party wing, like to think of debt in terms of "home economics." What's no good for homemakers can't be good for our government. But this piece of reasoning is insane. The government is not the same as a household.

What are the differences? First of all, the government has a flexible income stream (revenue) while a household's income stream is relatively fixed. The government's income comes from within and the household's income comes from without. That is, the government draws income as a variable percentage of the nation's annual gross national product. A household's income is determined by its participation in the world around it, that is, it's contribution to the gross national product. 

Debt is the amount of income which we are obligated to pay out. Debt occurs either because we have promised to pay something to somebody for some purpose or because we have borrowed from somebody in order to spend for some purpose. Borrowing always involves interest on the amount borrowed so that is a further obligation. When debt equals income, we either have to borrow more to cover new expenses (which increases future debt) or increase the income or reduce spending. The debt ceiling is a ban on increasing debt.

The Tea Party would like us to believe that the average American household manages its finances in ways far superior to the Federal Government. But this is a fantasy. The average American household is indebted right up to 100% of its income. That is, every household has made promises to feed and clothe itself, to say nothing of providing cable and cell-phone service, gasoline, insurance, etc. Households have rents or mortgages and indebtedness on loans, credit cards, etc. Households also have obligations to Federal, state, and local governments. By the time all of this is added up, few households possess what is called "disposable income" or income that can be spent on new adventures. Most households are locked into their income streams so borrowing is their only way out. 

The government would normally have far more flexibility than a household. But, for the last twelve years, the government has been held hostage to a ban on increased income (tax revenue). Thus, if the government is simultaneously prevented from borrowing, it is forced to curb spending. That situation might be all right, in some circumstances, but the last four years has seen a large reduction in revenue and a large increased need for spending because of the major recession we have been through. 

A household can lose a major portion of its income when the breadwinner(s) loses employment. When it cannot meet its obligations, the members of the household find themselves homeless. Only the government can reliably provide assistance at this point. But that means increasing government spending in times of need. 

What the Tea Party and other Republicans seem to want is nation fashioned after Les Miserables --- no social conscience, just let people suffer whatever happens to them and guard your own bread.