What Goes Up Must Come Down

Last week I came across a report from the Congressional Budget Office on deficit projections.  The gist of the report is, the deficit is dropping at a higher rate than previously projected.  The current deficit is at approximately the same level as when President Obama took office and if the trend continues, the deficit will continue to decrease for the next 10 years.  The report also shows that healthcare and medicare costs are decreasing and will continue to decrease for several years, at least until my generation hits retirement age, then these costs will become a major issue.

I've been waiting for some type of response from the government or the media on this report, but mostly it has gone unnoticed.  The Republican party is completely incapable of seeing any news that might reflect favorably on the Obama Administration.  Maybe if we had a Marine hold an umbrella over it they would notice.  The few words from the Democrats show concern that the deficit is dropping too fast, so we need to increase spending to protect the economy.

The deficit decrease comes from three sources: reductions in government spending, an improving economy and elimination of some tax cuts for the wealthy.  With all the screaming I've heard over the past four years about out of control deficits, I wish I could say I'm surprised those same people aren't stepping up and saying "we were wrong".  Instead they are going crazy over umbrellas.

At its recent peak, the federal debt was the highest it has been since the end of World War II when compared to gross domestic product (GDP).  Here is a fascinating graph (if you're the sort to become fascinated with graphs) showing this:

You will notice how World War II caused a significant spike followed by 30 years of decreased debt, which bottomed out at the end of our involvement in Vietnam and then remained steady until President Reagan took office.  For the next 15 years the debt increased, followed by 5 years of reductions during President Clinton's second term.  The debt increased slightly during President GW Bush's time in office and then took a dramatic leap.  Now time for the explanation.

During World War II our GDP dropped significantly while government spending skyrocketed.  After the war, GDP leaped ahead and continued to grow for the next 25 years.  Even with the wars in Vietnam and Korea, increased GDP, a thriving economy and high tax rates for the top income brackets caused a steady reduction of public debt.  What changed?  In 1980, President Reagan took office and one of his first acts was to reduce taxes for the wealthy.  The theory, commonly referred to as "Reaganomics" was that if the wealthy had more money, they would spend it in ways that would help the middle and lower classes.  Strangely, it didn't work that way.  GDP fell as the wealthy sought more ways to maximize their wealth.  Manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas to save labor costs, further reducing tax revenues.  Meanwhile, welfare and unemployment costs continued to rise.

Throughout the Reagan years and President Bush's one term debt continued to grow until President Clinton's tax increases brought about a significant decrease.  During President GW Bush's time in office, tax cuts for the wealthy were partially offset by a healthy economy (brought to you courtesy of the Clinton years, however increased military spending caused a steady increase in debt, which began to skyrocket when Wall Street melted down.

From 1936 through 1980 the top tax bracket in the United States never dropped below 70% with a high of 94% in 1944 and 1945.  In 1981, this dropped to 69.125%, then dropped to 50% until 1987 when it reached 38.5%.  From 1988 to 1991 the rate dropped to 28%, a level not seen since the Great Depression.  There was a slight increase to 31% for 1991 and 1992 and then President Clinton took office.  From 1993 until 2000 the top rate remained at 39.6%.  A drop to 39.1% happened in 2001, followed by a drop to 35%, which is where it remained  until the recent increase back to 39.6%.

The problem with changing the top tax rates is the delay factor.  When you cut the rate, nothing appears to happen, so you cut it again, and again and again.  By the time a problem becomes apparent, the rate is much lower than where the problem first began.  Rather than backtracking and undoing the changes which brought on the problem, the reaction has been to find other solutions.  If your kids are playing baseball in the backyard and your windows keep getting broken, the problem isn't going to be fixed by buying new bats.

Unless your taxable income is over $379,150 an increase in the top tax rates will not affect you.  If your taxable income is over that level, you can decrease your tax burden by investing in your business or investing in your community.  It's time to realize that the deficit problem we are dealing with has one, and only one, simple solution.  Undo the tax reductions that brought us into this mess in the first place.

Singing In The Rain

There's just something special about a good umbrella.  It plays a key role in "Bus Stop" by The Hollies, and Gene Kelly uses one to good effect while "Singing in the Rain".  The umbrella even makes a cameo appearance in the Wizard of Oz.  Many years ago, baseball great Lou Brock invested in a company that tried to combine the best features of a ball cap and an umbrella the "Brockabrella".  When you have to be out in the rain, it's really hard to beat a good umbrella.

The downside of an umbrella (but not a Brockabrella) is that it requires a free hand to hold it.  This is fine if you're walking down the street, or leaving your Presidential helicopter and walking to your Presidential limousine, but makes life rather difficult when you're standing at a podium trying to deliver a speech.  It's also difficult to pull off when you have a beer in one hand and a hot dog in the other.

There are times when we schedule events that require good weather.  It may be something as simple as a backyard barbecue, or a trip to an amusement park.  If the weather doesn't cooperate, you have the option of either changing your plans or cancelling them altogether.  Maybe you have someone hold an umbrella for you while you tend the grill, or maybe you spend the day at the hotel's indoor pool and put off the Disney World trip for another day.  When I lived in the Seattle area, we just ignored the rain and went on with our plans regardless of the weather.  Sometimes you just have to deal with soggy buns.

Some occasions can't be cancelled, postponed or moved inside.  If you've planned an opulent outdoor wedding and a surprise shower pops up in the middle of the vows, it's rather difficult to pack it all up and move inside.  The same is true of a White House press conference.  If the press conference is scheduled outdoors, then everything has to be set up.  All the cameras and microphones need to be in place, along with the flags and podiums.  Barring extreme weather, moving inside is not a reasonable option.

Last week, during a joint press conference with the Turkish Prime Minister, President Obama asked for two Marines to hold umbrellas for him and the Prime Minister.  Suddenly, we have another scandal.  It is against the Marine Corps uniform regulations for male Marines to use or carry an umbrella while in uniform.  Doesn't the President have any respect for the Marines?  Can't he hold his own umbrella?  After all, according to Sarah Palin, "most Americans hold their own umbrellas".

Apparently, it's okay have someone else hold your umbrella, only if you're Sarah Palin.

There are several different things President Obama could have done in this situation.  The first, most obvious is to just ignore the rain and finish the press conference.  In lieu of that, he could have held his own umbrella, thereby forcing the Turkish Prime Minister to also hold an umbrella.  He could have also offered an umbrella to the Prime Minister and done without, or used an umbrella without offering one to his guest.  Why didn't he do any of these things instead of committing the most heinous offense possible by asking two Marines to hold umbrellas?

Here is a word you may want to write down on a slip of paper, have laminated and carry with you at all times.  It is a word of great power, a word that allows two families that hate each other to be civil for a wedding.  It is a word that allows countries with completely different ideologies sit down to work out their differences.  It's a word that prevents me from screaming "You're an idiot", several times each day.  That word is "Diplomacy".

Diplomacy requires the President to extend courtesy and equal treatment to his guest, so an umbrella becomes a diplomatic necessity.  What you can't see in the photos, explains why he didn't force the Prime Minister to hold the umbrella himself.  On the podium are prepared notes, either on index cards or paper.  Reminders of what the Prime Minister wants to say, prepared answers to expected questions and maybe a few witticisms.  Shuffling through those notes requires two hands unless the Prime Minister wants to look like a bumbling fool.  Once again, diplomacy comes to the rescue.

To clear up the final point, while it is against regulations for a Marine to carry or use an umbrella while in uniform, the President is well within his rights to request 2 Marines to hold umbrellas.  It's not like he was asking 851 of them to die over non-existent weapons of mass destruction.  For the Marines involved, their friends and family get to see them looking their best on national TV and no one is shooting at them.

In the middle of all the ridiculous Republican mud-slinging over trivialities, not a single word has been said about the Congressional Budget Office's report that the Federal deficit is shrinking at much higher rate than previously projected.  Currently the deficit is at approximately the same level it was when President Obama first took office and will continue to drop for the next decade, barring any massive changes.  But all of that is fuel for another day.  For now, I propose Presidential Brockabrellas for everyone.

Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

Having just read a story, about the burial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, I'm feeling as disgusted as I have felt in quite some time.  Apparently, Tsarnaev was buried at a small Muslim cemetery near Doswell, Virginia.  Local residents are outraged and county officials are trying to determine if any laws were broken, so that the body can be removed from the county.  The concern is over having the body of a criminal buried in the county.

Local authorities are upset because they were not informed, before the fact, of the burial.  Is there some requirement I'm unaware of, requiring government approval for funerals?  Does every corpse have to pass a background check prior to burial?  "We're sorry, but the deceased does not meet our requirements at this time.  You might check back with us in six months to see if our requirements have changed."

How many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles have been buried in Virginia?  Do your neighbors have the right to object to who is buried in the local cemetery?  Since discrimination against the living is becoming less acceptable every day, will we now shift the focus to the deceased?  "I'm sorry sir, but our records show that your father was 17% African-American, but the plot you purchased is in the white only section.  We'll have to move the burial to the back of the cemetery."  Will there be a smoking section for cremated remains?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, deceased, departed, no longer amongst the living.  I predict that he will commit no more crimes, nor will he carry out any more terrorist attacks.  Why not worry more about taking care of the living, than punishing the deceased?  If the local residents are so worried, why not ask Tsarnaev's neighbors if they have a problem with him being buried there.  I'm betting that not a single corpse will complain unless he plays his stereo too loud at 3am.

Regardless of what we have done in life, once death claims us, shouldn't that be the end?  At that point, shouldn't reward or punishment be no longer a concern of the living?  Perhaps Hanover County, Virginia has some other problems to worry about.

Finally, A Gun You Can Make Yourself

By now everyone has heard the news, a plastic gun, created on a 3D printer, has been successfully built and test fired.  The inventor, Cody Wilson, through his non-profit organization, Defense Distributed, envisions a gun that can be built by anyone, anywhere (anyone, anywhere that has a computer, an internet connection and access to a 3D printer).  Congratulations and good work!  I was worried about being able to find some way to buy a gun.  Now all I need is a few thousand dollars for a 3D printer, which is much better than spending less than $300 to buy one of the several thousand guns for sale within a 50 mile radius.

The idea behind a printed gun is to make sure that, through gun regulation, the government can not disarm the American public.  Very clever indeed, except for one minor problem, there is no lobbying group spending millions of dollars to prevent any legislation governing the use of 3D printers.  The fact, the gun is likely to explode in your hand isn't so much a problem as a design feature.  I suggest you wear eye protection.

This may come as a surprise to some people, but you do not need a 3D printer to make your own gun.  With about $100 worth of hand tools, dedication and some work, you can make your own gun out of steel.  If the hard work doesn't appeal to you, for about 1/3 the cost of a 3D printer, a small milling machine can be used to make all the parts, and steel, tends to stand up better than plastic.  Plans for all types of guns are available online, or simply buy a gun, disassemble it and make your own blueprint.  The only thing Defense Distributed has done is make homemade guns available to the people who are too lazy to do the work themselves. 

The downside of having a homemade plastic gun, which may explode when fired, is that such a gun is very difficult to detect.  Earlier, because I neglected to bring either my phone or a book to the bathroom, I designed ammunition for a plastic gun that eliminates about 85% of the metal in a normal cartridge.  Muzzle velocity will drop considerably, but the weapon should still be effective and would easily make it past airport security checkpoints.  That's right, despite hundreds of billions spent to ensure another attack, such as 9/11, never happens again, we are now only a few months and a low fiber diet away from an almost certain attempt.

I admire the spirit of invention and am proud of all the inventors and innovators who are doing their best to make the world a better place.  Through their hard work and dedication, millions of people now have access to safe water and food and millions are protected from deadly disease.  Our pioneers help bring housing, education and medical facilities to people around the world.  We cure disease,  help overcome famine and reduce suffering and misery.  Now we can add "cause death and destruction" to our resume.  Actually, that has long been our main export, it just isn't polite to brag.

In recent years, the trend has been to classify every problem as a disease.  Once something becomes a disease, it is treatable, billable and profitable.  Perhaps it is time to classify Second Amendment Paranoia as a disease.  I'm sure the drug companies can come up with candy coated Wellbutrin as a treatment and through counseling and drugs we can help these SAPs return to normal, productive lives.

Blessed Are the Children, Blessed With Children

Today has been a good kid day, even though I only spent about 45 minutes out and about.  Now to see if I can explain "good kid day" satisfactorily.  For some reason, children seem to be attracted to me, whether in a restaurant or a grocery store, small children stare, smile and even laugh at me.  Either they think I'm a nice guy, or I look really funny to them.  As long as the kids are happy, it doesn't matter.  A good kid day is when happy, healthy and loved kids smile, laugh, stare at or talk to me.  A bad kid day is when the children just scream in the distance while the parents demonstrate their lack of parenting skills.

I had to go pick up my new glasses and go get something substantial for lunch.  Sixty hours without an actual meal was too long for me to be satisfied with a can of soup and a piece of toast.  At the eye doctor's office (Dr. Tavel at Greenwood Park Mall, really nice people) there was a mother in front of me with an infant sleeping in a stroller and a young girl probably about 6 years old.  The little girl happily told me she was there to get new glasses, that her current glasses were for at home and the frames were cranberry.  She needed a pair of glasses for school and a pair of outside glasses, and she wanted at least one of the frames to be green.  Depending on your interpretation, she was either cute and adorable, or really annoying.  I'll go with cute and adorable.  As a bonus, her mother was actually paying attention and moved her away before there was any risk of her becoming annoying.

After the eye doctor, I headed to Ryan's for lunch.  Ryan's is not exactly haute cuisine, but there are some things I like about eating there.  Sometimes, without asking, they give me the senior discount, saving me a few dollars.  I can also have a nice big salad, three or four different vegetables and maybe even some fresh fruit.  Plus, it's only three blocks from home, so I don't have to invest a lot of time in lunch.

I did something today that I rarely do, sit at a table next to a table with two small children and two young women.  At first I was confused because the two women were both young (15 and 18) and obviously sisters.  Who was the mother of the children?  The answer was not immediately obvious, neither were the ages.  However, I have a nasty habit of listening to whatever conversations are going on around me, and since they were the only talkers within range, I learned about them.  The younger of the two had just recently turned 15, and her son was 3 months old.  Her sister, I'm guessing was 18 and her daughter 10 to 12 months old.  Both children appeared happy, healthy and well cared for and both mothers seemed to be happy, intelligent and good single parents.

In theory, any girl capable of becoming pregnant, and giving birth is also capable of being a good mother and history is full of good mothers who were barely in their teens when they earned their title.  In practice, good mothers seem to be at least as rare as virgin brides, and I am not drawing any correlation between the two.  Quite often, a very young mother will gladly let the grandparents raise the baby, because being a mother tends to really restrict a teenagers social life.

For as long as I can remember, there has been worry over teenage pregnancy.  Every few years the subject will become the media's fair-haired child as if it is somehow a new problem.  After today's experience, I have to wonder if teenage pregnancy is a problem.  Unwanted pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy are both problems.  Pregnancy for people who are unsuited or incapable of being good parents is a problem, but there is no age where a woman automatically becomes a good parent.  Being 16 doesn't make you a good driver, being 18 doesn't make you an informed voter and being 21 doesn't make you a responsible drinker. 

Becoming good at anything requires knowledge, practice and desire (desire by itself is where the problems come from).  Very few schools give anything more than a short, clinical description on human reproduction and even fewer have anything on the curriculum about parenting.  Any mention of birth control causes an uproar worse than if the school required all girls to wear chastity belts (a law I expect Indiana to propose any day now).  In short, there is no readily available path to becoming a good parent, other than observation and trial and error.  If you want to become good at any sport or any occupation there are camps and programs and schools galore to help you achieve your goal.  Where is the summer camp for potential parents?  Instead, we give them one day each year to get cards and flowers and hope they become good parents without ruining or ending too many lives.

Perhaps it is time to rethink our entire education system.  Along with teaching the children how to conjugate, maybe we need to teach about reproduction and parenting.  At least make it an available option.  Imagine a world where every parent is a good parent.  For one thing, it would make eating out a much more enjoyable experience.

The Great White North

I'm freshly returned from my first visit to Canada in 25 years and my first visit to the province of Ontario.  My three previous visits, all to Vancouver, British Columbia, were in 1984, 1986 and 1988, with 1984 being the only time I actually went through the border crossing.  The other two trips, I entered Vancouver by ship, thanks to the U.S. Navy.

After 25 years, I didn't notice any real changes in Canada, even though the two areas are 2700 miles apart.  The country looked clean, the people were very polite, nice and friendly and the drivers were courteous and attentive.  Spending 18 hours in a country does not make me any sort of expert, all I have are my initial impressions, which I should have ample opportunities to reinforce, since I will be making this trip twice a week.

My trip included a stop in London and Mississauga, Ontario (ON).  London is a city of about 365,000 and the little bit I saw of it, looked about like any U.S. city of that size.  Other than drivers on the road, I saw no one on my brief stop there.  Mississauga, population 720,000, is part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).  While in Mississauga, I had the chance to meet a few people.  While waiting to unload my truck, and waiting for paperwork, seven people walked by, including the only two people I will be interacting with on a regular basis.  Six of those people stopped, introduced themselves, shook my hand and took time for a few moments of small talk.  The seventh didn't introduce herself, but made sure that I knew where the coffee was located and wished me a nice day.

Seven people taking a moment to be nice may not seem like a big deal to you, but it does to me.  Five of those people will never need to interact with me and at least two will only see me a few times each year, and then, only in passing.  There have been people I've worked with for several years who never gave me more than a nod or a grunt if I told them good morning.  I can't recall how long it's been since six complete strangers offered me a handshake.  The people just seem to be happier and nicer than my fellow Americans.

No where was this quality more obvious than on the highways (which are in much better shape than our own).  I experienced some heavy traffic conditions, but did not see any road rage.  While driving nearly 400 miles in Canada, I only saw one obvious case of inattention.  I can't drive one mile here without seeing at least four instances.  People were not on their cell phones, they weren't texting, they were just driving.  If I put on my turn signal to make a lane change, people slowed and made room to accommodate me.  The people behaved as if:  A.  Driving was important, and B. Traffic was a common occurrence.  Imagine that.

The GTA is roughly half the size of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, with similar population, this makes the population density in Toronto about double of that in Washington.  Typically, the higher the population density, the higher the crime rate, especially the rate of violent crime.  However, Toronto averages about 3.3 homicides per 100,000 population compared to 21.9 for Washington, DC.  Robbery statistics show similar discrepancies, 207 to 650/100,000.  These numbers are after Washington, DC had experienced a 50% reduction in violent crime rates.

Canada has a much greater ethnic diversity than the United States.  While all ethnic groups are represented here, most are clumped together in reasonably small, isolated areas.  I'm certain this occurs in Canadian cities as well, but it doesn't seem to be the issue it is here.  Perhaps there are a few things on immigration we might learn from our northern neighbors.

I'm certain Canada has its problems and drawbacks, but from what little I've seen of it, it's a great country to visit and maybe a nice place to live.

Where Are They Now?

Occasionally, a television program will check in with a former, high-profile person, who has either fallen from public view, or has regained media attention for a different reason.  Perhaps it is a former professional athlete, who is working a regular job, or a movie star dealing with drug addiction.  Who can forget former/current lead singer from Van Halen, working as an EMT?  These are considered human interest stories and they help to illustrate how fragile position is, once you rise to the top.

These type of stories happen all around us, every day, but never make the news.  But that's not what I want to write about today.  Today, I want to write about inconsistency, something we all exhibit at times, often without realizing it.

I tend to be somewhat obsessive.  If I believe in something, I believe in it all the way, until I'm given ample evidence my belief is mistaken.  As an example, I believe in being nice to people, regardless of my mood, or how they treat me.  Although it is difficult at times, I make an effort to restrain my urges, smile and walk away.

When someone is inconsistent in their beliefs or actions, I feel the need to point it out.  This is why I make a habit of pointing out people, who have declared acceptance of a particular religion, when they commit acts inconsistent with their expressed beliefs.  Therein lies my own inconsistency; I enjoy doing something that can hardly be considered "being nice".  I'm not perfect, just shaved, or at least my neck is.

Just a few weeks ago, before captured Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had arrived at the hospital to be treated for his wounds, Republican lawmakers were urging this U.S. citizen be declared as an enemy combatant.  Amongst the early demands were those from Senators Graham (R-SC), McCain (R-AZ), Ayotte (R-NH) and Representative King (R-NY).  Others jumped on this bandwagon, which was halted quickly by President Obama's announcement that the suspect would not be declared an enemy combatant.  In the following days, others came out criticizing this decision, including Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).

Now we see reports that the FBI has thwarted a potential terrorist attack in Minnesota, by a convicted felon, also a U.S. citizen.  This potential terrorist was allegedly in possession of pipe bombs, other explosive devices and firearms, including a Romanian AKM assault rifle.  Currently, this man is being held for the crime of a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, while the investigation is underway.  Here is a link to a detailed story, since today this story has disappeared from the news:  Montevideo man's terror attack against police foiled, FBI says. 

The question I need to ask is where are all those Republican demands today?  Why have there been no calls for this man to be treated as an enemy combatant?  Why has no member of Congress stated "extreme interrogation techniques" should be used to determine the extent of this conspiracy?  Where is Rep. Bachmann on this, a potential attack that threatened her home state and the people she is being paid to represent?  Where are the demands this person's rights need to be ignored in the interest of fighting terrorism?

Are there degrees to terrorism?  Is an attack that kills and injures innocent bystanders somehow worse depending on the nationality, race or religion of the terrorist?  Is a deluded, white supremacist felon somehow a better person than an educated Muslim extremist?  And the question that will never be asked:  How is it possible for a convicted felon to come into possession of multiple firearms?

If you're an elected official, try to be consistent.  Either demand Buford Rogers be given enemy combatant status, or admit that your reactions were simply an expression of your belief in the rightness of racism.