On Guns and Stuff

An email discussion erupted today amongst a bunch of buddies over the issue of guns, drugs, Mejicans, search and seizure, trophy animals, and somebody’s non-existent sex life… it was a somewhat broad discussion, though there was no talk of women’s dirty parts (we are all honorable men).  

The concern was driven by an article profiling recent efforts by the ATF to track the origin of firearms used in Mejico during recent drug related shootouts between the cartels and the Mejican government.  This tracking included house-to-house searches of people to whom the weapons could be traced.  The discussion morphed into an argument about the right to bear arms, and a potential power grab by government by further restricting the right to own guns.  

My two cents is that when guns are talked about as being a problem, what’s actually being talked about is “gun-related crime”.  The operation of a gun, barring accidental discharge, requires the action of another being or mechanism (likely designed by another being).  A gun by itself lying on the ground is nothing more than an inanimate object; it is incapable of picking itself up and firing itself toward another human being; it has no mind.  So here’s your quote: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.  Cliché’?  Yes.  True?  By all logical and obvious rationale, yes. 

So, building on that concept, if it takes an individual to operate a gun then the real agent of gun related crime is in fact the criminal.  Well, no shit.  But let’s think about that for a second.  An individual’s predisposition towards crime is his own, not the gun’s.  If an individual were predisposed to crime, and guns were none existent, would the criminal not find another means of threatening, intimidating, and inflicting harm on another to force their will upon them?

Say we take away everybody’s guns in America.  Does crime stop?  How ‘bout a bow and arrow?  Projectile weapon, threatens, intimidates, kills.  How ‘bout a knife?  Threatens, intimidates, kills.  Brute force and a pair of rock hard fists?  Threatens, intimidates, kills.  There’s a name for what happens when you venture too far down the road of legislating morality, and limiting freedoms in the name of “protecting people from themselves”.  It’s called a Police State. 

No, I don’t think America is turning into a police state.  But, what seems increasingly clear is our society is wanting of virtue.  It seems there was once a time in this country when taking away the right to bear arms was nary an issue.  That’s because the people were fully capable of policing themselves.  Right and wrong had much clearer distinctions.  People cared more about their family, their neighbors, and their communities.

We ought to care more about our families, neighbors, and communities.  How can we expect the world to do right by us if we can’t do right by each other?  I mean all we are saying is give peace a chance.  (sparks a Mejican dube, Beatles play, fade to black…) 

On Funding Healthcare

If you live in the U.S. and haven’t been otherwise incapacitated over the last month or so, you are abundantly aware of the buzz surrounding the Healthcare debate of late.  While I haven’t written in the past few weeks (I’ve been busy… uh… DRINKIN’), I’ve been carefully filing away various concepts I garner from TV news, various articles, emails from friends, and conversations with friends and family.  While I admit I haven’t had the time to truly delve into the matter fully, I felt it necessary to just get some thoughts down to preserve for later discussion as this issue progresses.  This may be a bit of a rant, so be prepared. 

Whatever happens with Mr. Obama’s plans for healthcare reform, one thing is certain: it’s going to cost mucho dinero.  Even if the reform of the system is rewarded by greater efficiency, less cost, and is in fact sustainable, the cost of such a transition will be, uh… HUGE.  The question naturally follows, “How are we going to pay for this?”  With MONEY, you idiots!  OK, that was a cheap shot, but one that leads to the next obvious question: “WHERE are we going to get the money to pay for this?”… a much more interesting question. 

 When you need money, how do you get it?  You earn wages from your employer for your labor (sweat equity), sell something (employing your own capital), borrow it (consumer loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc.), or steal it (so many jokes, so little time).  The federal government generally has only two ways to raise funds: taxing your broke ass, and borrowing from communist regimes – if you don’t think that’s funny, stop reading and go get a drink.  Now, I’m fully aware that China doesn’t hold all our debt.  In fact, the greatest debt holder is the U.S. public itself through Treasuries.  I digress.  But to be clear, generally taxes and borrowing are the government’s only sources of revenue. 

Now, most people understand that the well is only so deep.  The argument then turns to what government can do to shore up existing programs to save money for others.  As an example: How many $300 toilet seats do we have to shed to pay for this new nuclear missi… or uh, provide healthcare for the homeless?  Most people, myself included, tend to think this should be an easy thing to do; it’s a simple matter of sitting down and prioritizing.  But, when the overall picture of government expenditures and budgets is examined, it’s not so simple. 

It is generally accepted that two thirds of the federal budget is “mandatory” which leaves the other third as “discretionary”.  According to Tom Gorman’s, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Economics - 2003, “mandatory” spending translates to entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, and Food Stamps (pg. 184).  What’s interesting about “discretionary” spending is that it isn’t always exactly discretionary.  For instance, Congress votes annually on defense spending, but nobody is going to come out and say defense is “optional” (ibid).  In that sense it’s quasi-discretionary at best. 

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that spending cuts aren’t as easy as people think.  Obama tried recently and met with a nice bit of flack.  He outlined $17 billion in cuts only to have his efforts thrown back in his face for their insignificance.  That comprises 2.16% of the $787 billion stimulus package, and .15% of the $11 trillion budget deficit we’re running.  That’s like somebody giving you the volume knob from your car stereo back after the car’s been stolen (just tryin’ to help put it into context).  In essence, we shouldn’t expect spending cuts to amount to anything truly substantial anytime soon. 

Big O recently made a speech announcing that Congress is going to head back to the Pay-Go policy of the 1990’s.  Basically, for every dollar Congress spends they have to find a source of funding for it by cutting other spending.  “Good job, Big O!  What?  That doesn’t include healthcare?  You mean we can do tens of billions more in borrowing and sort it out later as long as it’s for healthcare?  Oh… Ok.  But everything else is Pay-Go right?  Wink, wink… nod, nod.  I gotcha Mr. President.”… said Ms. Pelosi.

So let’s talk about debt.  The U.S. incurs debt through the issuance of Treasuries.  They pay less interest than you and I because they are considered to be relatively riskless assets backed by the “Full Faith and Credit of the United States”.  That said, federal interest payments are HUGE!  Just as an individual usually has to pay a higher interest rate the more money they borrow, so does Uncle Sam.  For instance, in the last three months 10 year treasury yields have gone from around 2.6% to over 3.8%: Uncle Sam pays more because the more he borrows, and the shakier his financial house is, the more lenders get skittish.  This has helped to fuel the controversial topic of the world replacing the almighty Dollar as the preferred reserve currency. 

Now, there are some who say that deficit spending is cool.  They argue that since we’re mainly borrowing from ourselves that it doesn’t matter.  They don’t mind rolling the debt on to our progeny because, after all, they’ll be the ones that benefit from the money we’ve spent today, right?  Kickin’ the can down the road so your kid has to deal with it; what a bunch of winners.  They continue that since the debt just keeps rolling over and getting refinanced that it really doesn’t matter; sorta like the proverbial borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.  There’s another name for that… PONZI SCHEME!! 

I, like many other Americans according to recent polls, would like to see more financial responsibility on the part of the government.  Americans seem to have heeded the warning of deficit hawks like David Williams, former Comptroller General.  Like our recent recession and bubble burst, the overspending that caused it is clearly unsustainable, as is the government’s overspending.  Deficits matter and cannot be ignored.  We ought to care more not to kick the can down the road to our kids.  We ought to seek to pay for our own debts in our lifetimes. 

So, if we’re not going to borrow the money where are we going to get it?  The short answer is taxes.  Taxes will inevitably have to go up to shore up deficits and pay for new programs.  My thought is that first, the Bush tax cuts will expire.  That’s not too bad a deal it seems.  After all, the tax rates would go back to what they were in the Clinton days when we ran a budget surplus and the economy did OK.  After that, it seems Big O’s White House will likely go for tax hikes on the rich before anything else (he did campaign on this).  Recall that during the New Deal, the upper crust saw marginal tax rates as high as 90%.  Imagine that: every dollar you make over $250,000 the government takes $.90.  I doubt we’ll get there, but I would expect progressive taxation to get a bump.  After that, the other 95% of Americans that Big O plans not to tax will eventually start to see a creep.  Maybe not in income taxes, but likely in value added taxes – sales tax, surcharges, etc. 

I’ve ranted for a bit here, so I’ll rest for now.  But the bottom line, in my opinion, is we are going to continue to see deficits for many years to come, and taxes will inevitably rise. 

One final thought: If you have thoughts of your own you would like to interject, PLEASE comment.  I put this out there for people to read and contemplate, and hopefully learn.  But, I WANT TO LEARN FROM YOU TOO!!  If you think there’s something I’ve missed (there always is), or if you have a differing viewpoint (and plenty do), the only way I’m going to know is if you leave a sweet little comment for me.  Toodles till next time. – Love, Little Tommy Jefferson.

On the Usurpation of Political and Constitutional Power

Anybody who has taken the liberty of perusing their state laws, local ordinances, or even homeowners association documents has undoubtedly come across some high-toned, heavy-languaged law that at the very least leaves one scratching their head, if not questioning whether or not it’s even English.   As law making goes, the drafters are usually attempting to make the matter as concise and unambiguous as possible to suit the purpose of the law.  They take great pains to choose words whose definition and context will both accomplish their legislative goal, and convey the proper intent of the law. 

Of course, I may be giving these guys way too much credit, and certainly some are far more adept at this endeavor than others.  Yet even the most adept, who arguably the founding fathers of our nation were, are not immune to the wanton avarice of those individuals who seek to distort, contrive, and extract dubious and unintended meanings to suit their purpose. 

Little Tommy Jefferson, in all his would-be erudition, recently came across a fine example of this very phenomenon.  Most of my small but worthy readership is no doubt familiar with the American legacies of FDR’s New Deal, and LBJ’s Great Society.  These periods resulted in unprecedented growth in the federal government, and the birth of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other welfare programs.  Their Constitutional justification for doing so lie in their interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: 

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; (emphasis added) 

Now, the one thing about a document so grand in importance and significance as the Constitution is that it was clearly well thought out.  The Constitutional Convention labored arduously to bring about a documented system of government that would stand the test of time.  Furthermore, they did so with much study and meditation on historical systems of government – their advancements, their downfalls – and writings of historical leaders, philosophers, and political scientists.  It was hardly done willy-nilly.

What’s more, they left a significant amount of documentation behind to explain their intentions.  One such collection of documents is ‘The Federalist’.  In Number 41, James Madison asks the question, “Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it?”  The founding fathers were clearly concerned with government growing beyond practicality, and indeed becoming a dangerous and tyrannical power against the people.  To that end, it can fairly be said that the Constitution was written to be a minimalist document, allowing only for those things that were thought to procure and preserve the greatest amount of freedom as possible to the people.  Its simplicity is truly its genius.  

Article I, Section 8 – Powers of Congress sets about clearly enumerating what Congress has the right to do.  Theoretically (always a fun word… usually used when the proverbial, uh... poop is about to hit the fan), Congress should not venture beyond these enumerated powers.  But, as the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

The very argument FDR and other benevolent Democrats (and some Republicans) used above to usurp vast powers of taxation for the establishment of social programs in the name of the “general Welfare” was addressed by Madison in Number 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.  No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Madison goes on to argue that such a broad and general interpretation of that language is clearly unfounded given the specificity of the following enumerated powers:

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

Ahh Jimmy, tsk tsk tsk… such naiveté.  Events and decisions by the Supreme Court in 1937 would go on to procure the legacy of social spending programs to this very day, and has served as a license for government expansion and involvement in many more aspects of our lives. 

To be clear, I’m not writing to debate the merits of social programs; in any event, I don’t see them going anywhere.  But, what is useful to debate is federal government’s role in such programs.  To that end, another poignant quote comes to mind.  Gerald Ford, in his Presidential address to Congress on August 12^th, 1974, said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Prophetic?  Maybe.  But, perhaps no more so than Madison’s final sentence in Number 41:

How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

We’ll see Jimmy… we certainly shall see.

On The "Uh Oh" Phenomenon

To reveal a bit of personal information, I have a 21-month-old toddler running around the house these days. She’s an absolute cutie. And if you know anything about toddlers, you know that they continually surprise you with their attempts at using new words. While this is exciting and amusing, it’s not without its annoyances as well. Once they figure a word out, they continue to blurt it out with excessive pride in their assimilating into mom and dad’s world.

Well, mine lately has taken to the term “Uh Oh”. She falls down she says “Uh Oh”; she drops her sippy cup and “Uh Oh”; she looks out the window and says “Uh Oh”; she clicks a ball point pen and says “Uh Oh”. You get the point. Everything now is “Uh Oh”. It’s cute and innocent, but also annoying because as it is your charge to look after this child you are still obliged to turn your head quickly, or run in from the other room, or rush to her side to see what the “Uh Oh” is. The phrase is meant to be an alarming thing, and to the extent that it evokes a response from mom and dad, it has become her favorite means of getting our attention; she is able to exercise a modicum of control over us with this effective wolf cry. I mean, God forbid she says “Uh Oh” and we ignore it to find she’s stabbed the dog, or Picasso’d the walls in poop. Certainly there are varying degrees of inflection in the “Uh Oh”, but no matter how innocent the cry, you still ignore it at your peril.

As I was sitting around listening to Little Miss Wonderful “Uh Oh” around the house, I couldn’t help but juxtapose her with the U.S. news media. A strange comparison you think? Well, not to the erudite intellectual… ahem. The media uses the “Uh Oh” day in and day out without fail; it gets your attention and gets you tuning in. You avoid it at your peril (so they would have you believe). Like my daughter, it is their favorite phrase and instrument of control over their audience.

Now, some reading this will say, “Duh, that’s what they’re supposed to do”. Of course, what relatively intelligent human is not on to their game? But has anybody else noticed that the media’s inflection in their “Uh Ohs” has grown increasingly alarming? From the financial crisis to unemployment to the auto bailout to the environment to swine flu, they certainly have had their fair fodder for sounding the alarms lately. While I don’t want to jump on the anti-fear-mongering bandwagon (that dead horse has been savagely beaten), it’s hard not to notice how headlines are being offered these days. It has become all too common to see a host of tragic, traumatic, and dramatic headlines get top billing while the potential mustard seeds and rays of light get pushed to less prominent positions. Those of us looking for more favorable fare are left to search for the silver lining.

In the end they do it because it hooks the biggest percentage of fish every time. What does it say about us as a society that we respond to tragedy in this way? If you are honest with yourself (and I know you are), you know that people tune in to dark headlines not out of any degree of empathy, but more for the spectacle it provides: dare it be said, tragedy is entertaining. I can’t help but think that the reason has something to do with how we deal with our own lives on a day-to-day basis. Seeing something or somebody that is in a worse off position than ourselves somehow gives us a sense of relief that our lives aren’t that bad. I used to call it the Jerry Springer Effect – people tune into Springer to see the hilarity and outrageousness of character presented and then turn to their colleagues and friends and say, “I would never!” It in some way validates our station and circumstances. While there are any number of arguments and explanations for the phenomenon, it still leaves me shaking my head.

But, for the media toddlers it’s their best gig. They’ll “Uh Oh” their way into our living rooms, car radios, and home pages every day because they know our heads will snap to attention to make sure there’s no poop on the wall.

On The Perceptions of Credit

Like most of you were likely doing on your Saturday afternoon, I was cruising through some high-minded social philosophy reading when a particular concept struck me as noteworthy. It had to do with the concept of “Credit”. Henry Hazlitt says in his tome, Economics In One Lesson (pg. 28), “All credit is debt”. Now, I doubt this line is particularly exclusive to Mr. Hazlitt (though it could be), but viewing the concept of credit from that perspective must remind you: Credit isn’t cash. Think about what a store clerk may ask you when it’s time to check out: “Will that be cash, or credit?” Though either will still purchase you that new G.I. Joe you’ve been eyeing, they are clearly different concepts.

What is “Credit”, but a representation of someone’s ability to pay back a debt? Hazlitt explains further (pg. 31):

“Credit, on the contrary, is something a man already has. He has it, perhaps, because he already has marketable assets of a greater cash value than the loan for which he is asking. Or he has it because his character and past record have earned it. He brings it into the bank with him. That is why the banker makes him the loan. The banker is not giving something for nothing. He feels assured of repayment. He is merely exchanging a more liquid form of asset or credit for a less liquid form.”

Now, to further put this in context, think of the phenomenon all, or at least a good majority of us, have experienced, or at least have heard about. The minute you begin your inaugural perusal through your college campus during the first days of the semester, through the throngs of people who aren’t yet disenchanted with the idea of showing up to 8 o’clock class, there are these fun little booths with people handing out free t-shirts, gift cards, promotional cd’s, stickers; anything and everything to get you to their booth to do what?: SIGN YOU UP FOR YOUR FIRST CREDIT CARD!!

I’m using credit cards here as an example because I think most would agree they are the most iniquitous of debt instruments available today to the general public; they’re highly relevant. College students (freshmen in particular) are so yearning to expand their horizons of freedom and “fit in”, that they will readily put themselves into harm’s contractual way. But most college freshmen’s thoughts on the term “Credit” are nowhere near realistic. In fact, to most people the term “Credit” more readily translates into another term, “Purchasing Power”. While credit certainly does increase an individual’s purchasing power through the use of financial leverage, what most people ignore is that it is effectively a mortgage on your future earning power to obtain today what you otherwise had no money to afford. Again, CREDIT ISN’T CASH. You still have to “Pay the Piper”, as they say.

America, whether unashamedly, unwittingly, or uncaringly, today is a debt culture mainly due to our misconception of “Credit”; we choose to see it more as “What can I have today?” rather than “What have I forfeited tomorrow?” While some manner of inflation may be avoided by early purchase of goods, ultimately the interest costs associated with borrowing outweigh inflation several times over, and furthermore put more of a damper on future purchasing power as more of a persons money is spoken for by the interest on goods they already own.

Now, in no way do I want to suggest that credit should be avoided at all cost. Credit, unlike some of our current members of Congress, is not the Devil. However, it should be understood clearly, and used wisely.

Little Tommy Jefferson in all his would-be erudition is not immune to the follies of credit -misunderstood. While I revel in the good decisions I’ve made, I am not without my fair share of lament for those I’ve screwed up royally. Nonetheless, perceptions can and do change. Let’s hope our collective perceptions of debt and financial savvy change soon… or we’re all gonna be kickin’ it like homeys in international debtors prison.

A Humble Welcome

By way of introduction, let me welcome you to my new blogspot, “I Wanna Be Erudite”. So, what the hell does that mean? For the sake of those rushing to Google the word “Erudite” (yes Google is as much a verb as a noun now), I’ll explain further. Without citing any particular source of definition, the term means to be scholarly and learned, having great knowledge of one, or a host of subjects, typically garnered through reading. If that’s too heavy for you then consider rearranging the title into “I Wanna Beer… udite!” OK, corny, but I do like to soak my thoughts in suds from time to time.

Back to erudite. By extension, it is no accident that I’ve chosen Little Tommy Jefferson as my Nom de Plume. Thomas Jefferson, along with so many of our country’s great minds – Franklin, Adams, Madison, Washington…Bush (that’s a funny) – represent to me the epitome of erudition. These Renaissance Men were extremely well read on a host of topics, not the least of which was the human condition. Through open minds and a keen awareness of history, they were able to have a profound effect not only on their contemporary countrymen, but on numerous generations to come, and the world over. These men sought to master the mind, promote the greater understanding of human nature, and inspire their friends and communities to scarcely imaginable heights. Yes friends! I WANT TO BE THE NEW HOPE FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!!!

No, not really. Except to say that I do intend to use this spot as a means to examine, if only for myself, the socio-political, and economic playland we currently find ourselves in. BUT, that’s not all I intend to do. I hope to hit on a number of topics including sports (women’s beach volleyball is good), music (uh… Hootie anybody?), film (think Fletch), and the occasional expose on bah mitzvah etiquette; all this while maintaining a light and funny attitude towards it all.

In truth, what you can expect are my thoughts on a range of things, in which I hope you find some worthwhile mustard seeds for your own personal reflection. But above all, I hope I can entertain you enough to come see what I’ve conjured up on a regular basis. In closing, I leave you with my inspiration for this endeavor:

“The wise social philosophers were those who merely hung up their ideas and left them hanging, for men to look at or to pass by, as they chose. Jesus and Socrates did not even trouble to write theirs out, and Marcus Aurelius wrote his only in crabbed memoranda for his own use, never thinking anyone else would see them. They have come down to us by sheer accident”. – Albert Jay Nock (A Journal of These Days) - 1934