Can We Talk?

this is a great piece, Jeff, thank you... I imagine the part about wanting a government that "redistributes wealth" will drive some crazy, but that's what we do need today in USA.
Vote for Prop. 30 to save our schools in California!

Yup, have the government take my wealth and give it to someone else. Y'all need to read the Constitution...
I am sure that Jeff and DrDan will give up whatever wealth they have first to get things started.

It's not that it "drives some crazy", it's just that people won't work hard, take risks or dare to innovate in a society that discourages such risk-taking by taking any fruits from their labor and risk-taking and giving it to those that don't work hard or don't take risks.

There are many current and former governments that have done just that with disastrous results. Much of Europe is experiencing just such a situation right now.

Wealth redistribution has proven to be a failure in just about every economic system that it has been attempted.

The wealthy and talented either hunker down and don't spend or invest, or they leave for greener pastures elsewhere.

Well written article but a huge waste of effort. The divide between the left and the right in the country has probably reached insurmountable levels. Elections at a national or statewide level are mainly decided by the "undecided" voters. How anyone could be undecided baffles me as the issues are so clear and the contrast so stark that I assume these undecided voters are merely people who don't understand what each party stands for and are waiting for some mysterious clue on how to vote from the heavens above. I am not terribly optimistic about the future of our nation. We face a choice between the lesser of two evils but we do have to choose.

@Italiansurg: the US gov't has always 'redistributed wealth' in certain ways via taxes, the armed forces, Social Security (over 70 years old), federal dollars for transportation and so on. Compared to many other governments, esp in Europe, our Gini coefficient [roughly, how money is spread out over all the people] since ca. 1970 shows a huge increase in money flowing to the top, hence all those attacks on the 1%. Why so much outrage? The wealthy are getting wealthier. Public education is falling apart, over 20% of California children live below the poverty line...etc. etc.
I've read your other posts, you do have a heart. Why state sarcastically "have the government take my wealth" -- as if it doesn't now, as if you don't know taxes have been FALLING, that under Obama the federal government is smaller (it grew most under Geo. W. Bush).
Yes, I am willing to pay more in taxes. I support Prop. 30 to better fund public education in California...etc.
Look over this essay again, Jeff is trying to reach across the divide...can't you??

yes, yes, SBCC is indeed a CC [as noted twice in my post], but its mission is less to the community oldsters than to the young.

WebAdmin should know that you show a commenter, "MAN" up on your "recent online comments", and it begins in extreme fashion ranting about the ANTI-CHRIST...and obviously you have DELETED MAN from this thread...need to delete the ref up in "recent online comments"... Man, it's just too mystifying.

I agree with Jeff when he writes, "the Tea Party anti-big-government mentality might ultimately have its greatest impact, and where it derives much of its energy. The benefits of a government job, with health care, retirement, and vacation, are a vestige of an age when these benefits were also common in the private sector. Today’s world of no job security, stolen pension funds, and high-cost health insurance in the private sector makes government pay and benefits seem unfair and out of step with the realities of the modern economy."
To many Californians my spouse's UC pension, a defined benefits plan, would seem over-generous, and as well unsustainable.
But this is how the private sector once envisioned these pensions, say esp. in the 1950s and 1960s. We need to move ALL pensions into a government plan, ObamaSecurity, seriously.
The public pension plans in Calif. need to cap at the top (no one gets over $90,000 @ year), continue to increase employee contributions, raise retirement year, offer a lesser deal to new hires... the recent Assembly bill is a joke.

Mr. Oshins gets it half right. He fails however, to go after the hypocrisy of the Democrats who support imperialism, the war on drugs, endless wars abroad, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA.

This approach is what guarantees the continuing of the problems he mentions.

I don't mind having my taxes increased--provided that they actually go to something useful besides bloated boondogles and endless military action in places we don't belong.

Don't count on it Bill, especially at the state level. Jerry Brown just negotiated a sweetheart deal with the public employee unions while threatening to drop the hammer on public education unless the voters approve a tax increase.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-n...

Taxes and Services, go hand in hand, can't have a Service without a Tax, at least that's how it use to be.
Our society has become too self-complacent and reliable on our Federal and State Government to bail, save or pay us for complaining.
The Rich just endulge to their hearts content but give only when it personally suits them if they can enjoy more of what they have rather than invest in their Business and Employee's.
Our Government use to government like a watchful Mother now it either Dictates like an Abusive Father drunk on Booze or a Dotting Fool who won't help to save its life but to lead by example or to guild its people, its NOT.
As for the Tea Party and the other two Par-t-a-'s, neither one is offering a canditate worth its salt or courage; just the same old Puppet to give us lip-service and work the Parties Directives which only serve themselves at our expense $$$$.
I strongly believe that our Government should hold a little of every "ism" of Philosphy in Government practice but only the ism that service and protects the people from itself and outside.
This has been my Opinion (just like the rest of you).

Money is a product of my work. Each dollar is a "storage" container of my effort and all the work that led up to that effort.

Taking it away from me and spending it on massive, inefficient government programs that don't work is wrong. Example: We've spent 40 Trillion in wealth transfer (taking from the makers and "fairly and justly" giving it to the needy) over the past 40 years with *zero* net reduction of poverty.
That's a loss of liberty at tremendous cost for zero results.

What's worse is over-reaching regulations of industries that are already massively over-regulated - to the point that they off-shore or shut down or move to another state to do business. That another form of lost liberty: government workers creating ever-growing departments to issue endless rules and enforcement actions with little effective accountability.

"willy88's" example above --

:: "Example: We've spent 40 Trillion in wealth transfer (taking from the makers and "fairly and justly" giving it to the needy) over the past 40 years with *zero* net reduction of poverty. That's a loss of liberty at tremendous cost for zero results." ::

-- is both dubious and confusing:

- what does the 40 trillion number represent?
- What is a of "net reduction in poverty?"
- How are those terms meaningfully evaluative?
- Sources?
- Can success be measure in other ways?

The past 50 years have seen a huge reduction in U.S. poverty rates, most significantly with the Great Society and the War on Poverty:

"First, there was a huge fall in the poverty rate throughout the 1960s, and in particular after LBJ announced the War on Poverty in 1964 and followed up with Medicaid, Medicare, greater federal housing spending, and other programs to fight that war. In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then."

from "Poverty in the 50 years since ‘The Other America,’ in five charts":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/e...

THANKS Binky, and if we use the Gini coefficient (roughly the way wealth is spread out over the whole society) in the USA wealth has moved steadily UPWARD since about 1970...so however Willy88 wants to cut it, the 1% and the 5% have been accumulating more and more since 1970...they also got a MASSIVE tax-cut in 2002 and so on...then they whine when Obama/Demos try to re-establish that their hyper-rich tax rate to the pre-2002 level, which was not so bad. We have very low taxes, despite the ostentatious frothing at the mouth of the way rich (see Willy88, any comments he's ever made).

A thought-provoking letter. First two things that came to my mind:

(a) Liberals and conservatives are indeed more strongly divided than ever. See this Kaiser Family Foundation study where American views now and 14-years ago were compared. See section "Polarization is new normal":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...

The fact that the Tea Party faction now makes up close to 30% of Republicans probably doesn't help:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...

A summary of this interesting study of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents begins here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/20...

The section on Independents was especially interesting.

(b) One thing that liberals and conservatives should be able to see eye-to-eye on is the erosion of economic mobility in America. Even Rick Santorum (shudder!) had it right when he used poor grammer to say:

... movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.”

A sobering summary on the state of economic mobility in the U.S. (not the same as income inequality):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/...

@Binky: In the time frame you have presented, the issue of the homeless has not been addressed.

From what I have seen, homelessness has become worse over the decades.

DD-I am not opposed to paying my taxes and contrary to the mythology of the left people like me do not ignore the rest of society. This little town is full of rich folks, a lot of them conservative, that give in huge amounts to help the disadvantaged; I donate a tons of money to help kids that are economically disadvantaged for example but I put metrics on the funds so that they have to excel and have built in motivations to better themselves rather than creating a government dependent lower class.
The constant harping about tax rates is also nuts. As much as I decry the distillation of wealth in the past few decades the total revenues received by the government have gone up with this distillation of wealth since the rich are paying on more total income. Also, since government seems to be unable to live within their means an adversarial position is developing that is not solved by simply pontificating(not you DD) that rich people are bad. Without them the government has zero to redistribute since the top 5% of earners carry most of the burden for the entire country.
The scope of redistributed funds has been expanded where apparently the government has a right to spend money without any accountability on anything and this is where we have become more like the failing European model. The Germans are rightly becoming indignant about propping up the rest of the Euro zone as amazingly they remain productive while my home country discusses how soon their own Titanic will sink, all the while hoping the Germans keep floating them bad loans...
And no, I will not support any tax increase until the California state government becomes less idealistic and and somewhat rooted in reality. Brown's big press conference to deal with pensions was a lie and a joke which demonstrated once again this state is totally dysfunctional.
Finally, while am no fan of the Tea Party, their message about fiscal accountability is valuable and amazingly missing from both the right and the left; at least they brought this obvious fact into public discourse.

So anyone look at the Net Worth of,

Senator Ted Kennedy

Senator John Kerry

Senator Diane Feinstein

Congressperson Nancy Pelosi

Redistribution of Wealth only applies to the Subjects, never to the Self Appointed Elites that Advocate for it.

Charity is wonderful and efficient. The purpose of Government is not to be a Super Charity, Government is not efficient.

Wealth Redistribution is all about Power and the Elites, see Senators and Congresspersons above, never play, they create schemes that exempt themselves.

I only have respect for those who Practice what they Preach.

An odd and likely misleading list, "howgreenwasmyvalley."

:: "The median estimated net worth among Senate Republicans was $2.43 million, and the median net worth among members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate was $2.69 million*, by the Center's tally.

:: "Meanwhile, in the House, the median estimated net worth of a GOP House member was $834,250 in 2010, according to the Center's research, compared to a median net worth of $635,500 among House Democrats."

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/...

Weird that you would single out Ted Kennedy, who hasn't served since his death 3 years ago. He also spent most of his 46 years in office as a champion of equal access and rights for Health Care, raising the minimum wage, and improving Public Education.

Hardly the picture of a craven advocate for his fellow Rich Folk.

Well, Ted also killed a woman while "championing women's rights"...
Seriously Binky, even you get the fact that the Dem's go on tirades about rich folks while the Dem leaders are just as rich and reaping the rewards of insider information just like, well, their Republican counterparts.
The funny thing about the list is that all of these Dem's either inherited their money or married into it...all the while talking about protecting the "working person(no sexism here)".

@binky,

Its Simple,

Ted Kennedy spent 46 years preaching for the underdog, but died with an Estate of between 49 and 162 million.

John Kerry, Net Worth 194 million

Diane Feinstein, Net Worth 94 million

Nancy Pelosi, Net Worth 196 million

You would think all these People Loving Advocates would be worth less because they gave so much to CHARITY.

Again OPM (Other Peoples Money) is all about Power not Idealism, its the oldest Profession on the Planet and it belongs to both Major Parties.

This is the reason for Charity not Government, Government is a power trip, Charity actually helps people.

@Binky: You're a worthy adversary, very intelligent, and (if you aren't already) would make a brilliant lawyer, but in the years we've agree and argued, I have yet to see you break loose from your intractable partisan politics. If you did, (and I could apply this to people on both sides of the political aisle) you would find it very liberating.

I know: I was once where you are now.

mr. howgreenwasmyvalley, this sweeping generalization of yours is unverifiable, and subject to so many of life's particulars that I believe it is meaningless. :

"...You would think all these People Loving Advocates would be worth less because they gave so much to CHARITY."

(A logical fallacy as well, of the questionable cause variety.)
- - -

I thought this election cycle we were not supposed to judge people harshly just because they are rich (a courtesy to which I ascribe assuming the gains are fairly obtained)?

To my mind, the sum of a person's life seems to be in the good they leave behind; yet rarely does a life of consequence tally to zero on the minus side.

I use as a most colorful example, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009).

- - -

Thanks for your compliments and concern, billclausen. I'm pretty darn liberated as it is -- positively lousy with liberal license (and alliteration, synecdoche, and metonymy).

How about alliteratively allegorical?

Poor Binky,

You or I will never be invited to Hyannis Port or Kennebunkport. It is were the 1% of the 1% play. They don't have Social Security, they have a Special Retirement Plan, they don't have Medicare, they have a Special Medical Plan. They don't pay Inheritance Tax, they have schemes and Lawyers.

Judge them not by their Words but by Their Actions. You and I are but a Pawn on their Chess Board.

MLK said to judge a Man by his Character, not the Color of his skin.

I judge Politicians by their Character, when John Kerry takes his new custom 75', 7 million dollar, kustom sailboat to another State to avoid 437K in use taxes, I know his character and nothing that comes out of his mouth matters.

You buy into their game, I call it by what it is, "The Oldest Profession".

The solution is less OPM and less Power for them, all of them.

Liberty and Freedom is what is important, not OPM bribes.

Looks like they own You.

HGWMV: What Binky and other True Believers such as her fail to understand is that human nature--contrary to the mantra of the Left--isn't good.

Any objective view of human behavior shows that those to whom much is given, will often want more at the expense of others.

The stuck up good looking person in high school, and the greedy developer are good examples of this. Also, if you let a child grow up unsupervised, the result usually will be an antisocial being, yet there are those who feel that surrendering our rights to those in power will somehow usher in Utopia.

@Binky: I remember you once posted "Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!" (workers of the world unite)but to that I respond that it should be mitigated with the word "Свобода". (Freedom)

pretty sweeping generalization, Bill! And you also imagine you know what "the mantra of the left" is, and baldly assert "human nature isn't good"...!
Center-left folks feel that surrendering a bit of our precious individual rights, say more taxes for public education {YES on Prop 30!}, can be very positive for society and for the young in society...this DOES NOT mean your over-the-top assertion that "surrendering our rights to those in power will somehow usher in Utopia."
We have had as many RIGHT WING utopia fanatics (Fascism comes to mind) as LEFT WING utopia fanatics.
Contrary to your bleak view of human nature, I think that humans often ARE GOOD, or can be taught the verities, the virtues can be inculcated, and that there IS HOPE.
You thoughtfully wrote, "if you let a child grow up unsupervised, the result usually will be an antisocial being," and sure we've got plenty of them today. With the breakdown of social cohesion with this class warfare and technological dominance [Dominance by Design - Michael Adas book] many children are "unsupervised" all the time as they stare mindlessly at screen after screen... We need to pour more money into great education and hire amazing young teachers to turn this around. It can be done; we need to have hope.

Author needs to stop being brainwashed.

in the efficacy and promise of a government that regulates and redistributes wealth in a just manner; ...the government cannot take MY money that I made and give it to those who did NOT make it...what incentive would I have to go out there, create a business, hire people and give them a paycheck if my profits will be seized?

— government (education) is the critical instrument to limiting the ossification of social classes in the United States;....there will always be social classes, as there should be! If you don't want to live in poverty, you want to own a house, you want luxuries such as expensive cars, to go on vacations, etc...you WORK FOR IT! Educated or not does NOT determine if you will make money as an adult. You can learn a trade, open a business, become the best at that trade and you will make money. Stop making excuses!

— government provides directly or indirectly for those who cannot provide for themselves; and....you cannot provide for yourself is NOT my problem. I should not have to pay for you because you do not work you a** off to go somewhere in life. Now, I have no problem with say, being on government aid for a year but after that, it's on YOU to do something to change your life.

— government is necessary to protect us against our enemies and unbridled capitalism (ourselves)....WE are in charge of protecting outselves! Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves against tyranny and from foreign invasion. The government cannot have too much power or else we can loose everything.

DrDan: The center-left you refer to is not what I'm talking about, it's the new left I see popping up on these blogs and who I see have have a major influence on politics, publications, and education.

Last night I get a survey call about whether or not I would support a bond measure for one of the local the schools and of course "the children". I told them that I'm all for the kids and teachers getting money, but that every time they propose a bond measure they tell us it will cure our problems, the measure passes, and then they're begging us for money and since the money never gets to the teachers maybe the teachers ought to get together and go after the sybaritic (yes, I actually used that word) pencil-pushing bloated administrators who are sucking up all the $$$ and until then, I would not be voting for any more $$$ going to the schools until that money was accounted for. Even though I told the woman doing the survey that she needn't take my attack personally, she very coldly wished me a nice day and hung up.

Billclausen: I completely agree with you. I'm all for money for the teachers and the kids but year after year the "it's about the kids" speech gets old when nothing changes from previous years, most of the time, it gets worse. We have horrible education stats in this state so why the heck should more money be thrown at the education system? it's not fixed, nowhere close. And it's the teacher's unions taking up all the money from taxpayers. Get rid of the unions and you'll see some change!

I heard some of the unionized teachers in Chicago stating their case, and bottom line is they cannot produce results, the charter schools are outperforming them, and they're scared.

A family friend who is a teacher at a college explained to me when I asked him "why don't these teachers stand up to the administrators?" He told me "people such as your dad and I (my dad is not a teacher, but they have known each other since the '40's) come up the hard way, and had to produce or we didn't survive. Many of these teachers have been taken care of cradle-to-grave and as such are too afraid to stand up to the administrators where I would not be." (paraphrase)

The problem I've noticed--and it's an unspoken issue--is that teachers, like clergy and politicians, have long been held to a a mythical status where we don't dare criticize them. The reality is, they too are human, and while there are many good ones, some of them are not so good, and are not beyond reproach. Their inability to produce good results is more than just the lack of money, it's failed methodology. Kids used to be able to come out of high school with a reasonable ability to compose a written work, whereas now the term "low test scores" seems to be par for the course.

Get rid of the politics and social engineering and good results will return.

@billclausen

"...Many of these teachers have been taken care of cradle-to-grave and as such are too afraid to stand up to the administrators where I would not be."

OT-

Life was cheaper (monetarily) back then. One could risk losing a teaching job, because one could probably work and even retire as a food server. It's not so easy nowadays.

Also, are the administrators also in the same union as the teachers?