What won’t be discussed, or talked about, or addressed however, is the deep political fissure which exists in our country post 9/11. This fissure was not caused by 9/11. However, 9/11 could have prevented it. 9/11 should have been a catalyst to bring the country together. 9/11 had the ability to strengthen this country. Unfortunately, it didn’t.

What makes me sad is, as we reflect on this infamous day, the country is bitterly divided.  Partisan politics rules. Washington’s political strategy appears to be aimed not at moving the country forward but destroying the President or protecting him; regardless of what is right for the country. Self-serving agendas drive decisions. We’ve lost site of what’s important for the nation. We’ve squandered the greatest and most positive opportunity created by 9/11; the ability to come together as a country.

9/11 gave us the opportunity to come together as a nation. It challenged us to put our differences aside. It’s called for us to embrace what makes us great; diversity, the American Dream, immigration, freedom, rights of the individual, and the constitution. We haven’t grasped the opportunity from 9/11. We haven’t come together as a country, we’ve become more divided.

This is not an issue of ones politics. Diversity of thought is a key tenant of the country. It’s the way we go about promoting our agenda or lack of promoting it that is troubling. There is little promotion of ones ideas and approaches and lots of destruction of the opposition. We spend more time than ever trying to destroy those with differing opinions than trying to promote our beliefs on their merit. We’ve become angry.  We squabble and bicker while little get’s solved. We live in neighborhoods where everyone thinks and acts like we do. Not only do we have little patience for diversity of thought, we now have little patience for the person or persons who holds it. We have contempt for those who don’t see things the way we do. We have put our own selfish agendas above the needs of the country. The media, once sworn to unbiased reporting, fuels the fissure. Our division has moved beyond ideology. We’ve now made it personal and that is a problem.

The best and only good thing that could have come from 9/11 is the uniting of the country and we blew it. We are more divided than ever.  We’ve become a nation of rhetoric and soundbites and it’s killing us.  We’ve squandered an amazing opportunity created from a horrible tragedy.

All this being said it doesn’t mean we can’t turn it around.  In an effort to influence a new direction, I remind us all of a very simple phrase we all said every morning and that my kids still do . . . “United we stand, divided we fall.”

It’s time to stop dividing!

How much is a tax cut worth?

I don’t like taxes.  I don’t want to pay anymore than I have to.  That being said, we’re in a bit of fiscal trouble in this country and we have to get out of it, REGARDLESS of who’s fault it is or who’s to blame.   There is a large contingency in this country who want to reduce taxes. They say it will spur the economy and investment.   OK.  But by how much?   For every dollar cut in taxes how much is returned in tax revenue from growth.   Let’s be sure, that’s exactly what the theory is.  You cut taxes now, you make more taxes later.  The more taxes later comes from economic growth.   Assuming this theory is true I want to know how much we can expect back in taxes for every dollar we cut in taxes.  Does a 1 dollar tax cut create 2 dollars in new taxes?  Is it 50 cents?  Is 10 cents?   Is it 20 dollars?  Does anyone know?

I also have another question.

How long does a tax cut generate more taxes?

A tax cut is permanent (until it’s repealed). Therefore, every year the dollars NOT collected via the marginal tax rate it must be made up through growth, more money being made.  But how long can this last.  Is it a declining return?  If a dollar tax cut brings in 10 dollars in more taxes, does that stay constant or does it decline as we move further from the initiation of the cut.  Is it 10 dollars the first year, then 5 the second, the 3 the next etc.  Or maybe it’s only 1 dollar the first year, then 4 the next then 10 the next, before it starts to slide back down again.  I would really like to know how long a tax cut generates more taxes.  Is it infinite or do tax cuts have a shelf life?

Other words for taxes are revenue (like what companies have) and income (like what people have.)  Reduced revenue or income doesn’t bode well for people or companies.   Not sure why it bodes well for countries, especially those already running spending deficits.

Tax cuts should be looked at like an investment.   What is the return on a tax cut?

I would love it if anyone could explain the value of tax cuts in real dollars, with evidence.  If nothing else it could help me, and I’m sure others see past the rhetoric.

Related articles

• Obama: Kiss Bush Tax Cuts for Rich Goodbye (newser.com)
• Does the Obama plan raise taxes or cut them? (americablog.com)

Tom Friedman has an idea what China thinks of us and wrote a KILLER Op-Ed piece in the NY Times last week.  It deserves to be reprinted here.

——WikiChina by Tom Friedman——

While secrets from WikiLeaks were splashed all over the American newspapers, I couldn’t help but wonder: What if China had a WikiLeaker and we could see what its embassy in Washington was reporting about America? I suspect the cable would read like this:

Washington Embassy, People’s Republic of China, to Ministry of Foreign Affairs Beijing, TOP SECRET/Subject: America today.

Things are going well here for China. America remains a deeply politically polarized country, which is certainly helpful for our goal of overtaking the U.S. as the world’s most powerful economy and nation. But we’re particularly optimistic because the Americans are polarized over all the wrong things.

There is a willful self-destructiveness in the air here as if America has all the time and money in the world for petty politics. They fight over things like — we are not making this up — how and where an airport security officer can touch them. They are fighting — we are happy to report — over the latest nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. It seems as if the Republicans are so interested in weakening President Obama that they are going to scuttle a treaty that would have fostered closer U.S.-Russian cooperation on issues like Iran. And since anything that brings Russia and America closer could end up isolating us, we are grateful to Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona for putting our interests ahead of America’s and blocking Senate ratification of the treaty. The ambassador has invited Senator Kyl and his wife for dinner at Mr. Kao’s Chinese restaurant to praise him for his steadfastness in protecting America’s (read: our) interests.

Americans just had what they call an “election.” Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.

The ambassador recently took what the Americans call a fast train — the Acela — from Washington to New York City. Our bullet train from Beijing to Tianjin would have made the trip in 90 minutes. His took three hours — and it was on time! Along the way the ambassador used his cellphone to call his embassy office, and in one hour he experienced 12 dropped calls — again, we are not making this up. We have a joke in the embassy: “When someone calls you from China today it sounds like they are next door. And when someone calls you from next door in America, it sounds like they are calling from China!” Those of us who worked in China’s embassy in Zambia often note that Africa’s cellphone service was better than America’s.

But the Americans are oblivious. They travel abroad so rarely that they don’t see how far they are falling behind. Which is why we at the embassy find it funny that Americans are now fighting over how “exceptional” they are. Once again, we are not making this up. On the front page of The Washington Post on Monday there was an article noting that Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are denouncing Obama for denying “American exceptionalism.” The Americans have replaced working to be exceptional with talking about how exceptional they still are. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t declare yourself “exceptional,” only others can bestow that adjective upon you.

In foreign policy, we see no chance of Obama extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He knows the Republicans will call him a wimp if he does, so America will keep hemorrhaging $190 million a day there. Therefore, America will lack the military means to challenge us anywhere else, particularly on North Korea, where our lunatic friends continue to yank America’s chain every six months so that the Americans have to come and beg us to calm things down. By the time the Americans do get out of Afghanistan, the Afghans will surely hate them so much that China’s mining companies already operating there should be able to buy up the rest of Afghanistan’s rare minerals.

Most of the Republicans just elected to Congress do not believe what their scientists tell them about man-made climate change. America’s politicians are mostly lawyers — not engineers or scientists like ours — so they’ll just say crazy things about science and nobody calls them on it. It’s good. It means they will not support any bill to spur clean energy innovation, which is central to our next five-year plan. And this ensures that our efforts to dominate the wind, solar, nuclear and electric car industries will not be challenged by America.

Finally, record numbers of U.S. high school students are now studying Chinese, which should guarantee us a steady supply of cheap labor that speaks our language here, as we use our $2.3 trillion in reserves to quietly buy up U.S. factories. In sum, things are going well for China in America.

Thank goodness the Americans can’t read our diplomatic cables.

Embassy Washington.

This tongue and cheek has some real teeth to it.  Are we too full of ourselves to actually fix anything?  Are we focusing on the wrong things?    Are we so polarized we are causing our own demise?   Are we no longer doing the things people that bestow the label of exceptional on us by others?   What do you think?

Today the Republicans blocked a Democratic Bill that would provide medical care to the rescuers of 911.  The bill was formally named after James Zadroga, a police detective who helped out during 911 and later died from exposure to the toxic dust.   Republicans are opposed to the bill over concerns on how to pay for it.

The Republicans have gotten this one wrong.  This is as simple as it gets.   Take care of the people who took care of us.  Heroism isn’t trendy.  We can’t embrace it when the camera’s are on and it’s beneficial and toss it away when it no longer serves us.  Thousands of men and woman lost their lives or risked their lives to help save others.   They did what Americans do, they came to the rescue of those in need.  They didn’t think about the consequences to themselves.  They didn’t worry about the impact to their personal situation.  They just jumped in and helped and tried to make a difference.

Those who opposed the bill could learn something from our heroes.  They could stop thinking about themselves.  They could jump in and do what’s right and that’s help the heros who are now in need of our help.

Heroism isn’t a trend

Related articles

• Help for 9/11 Rescue Workers Sacrificed on Altar of Arcane Senate Procedure (fdlaction.firedoglake.com)
• Senate Republicans block vote on 9/11 health bill (washingtonmonthly.com)
• GOP filibusters health benefits for 9/11 heroes (americablog.com)

For most of our history we’ve defined country first as the great sacrifice on the battlefield.  We’ve embraced it as a nation, yet it has primarily been minorities and the poor who have made the ultimate sacrifice.  They have done it for generations and done it with pride.

Today there is a new threat to this countries standing in the world and it’s not from the battlefield.  It’s out debt.   It’s ballooning out of control and something has to be done.   As the Tea Party, Congress, and others squabble over what has to be done, few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to address the threat.  It seems everyone wants something to be done, but no one wants to pitch in — until now.

Eighty millionaires have come forward and have signed a letter asking Obama to allow the tax cuts to expire for anyone making over 1M.   They say it’s their duty and that they want to pay their fair share. The list includes Ben from Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, Moby the musician, Men’s Wharehouse CEO George Zimmerman and Princeton Review Founder John Katzman.

The letter reads: (Fiscal Strength.com)

Dear Mr. President;

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the pastearned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.

I agree with this letter.  I think it’s the right thing to do.  I am in favor of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire and have been for awhile, despite the fact that my taxes will go up.  Keeping them lower is not going to make me spend less.  I believe it’s my duty to help out and letting the tax cuts expire will be one step in addressing the largest non-military threat to this country.

A few facts to consider:

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires

The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

When the country is in need we have always looked to it’s citizens to save it.  Traditionally, it’s been on the battle field.  It’s been the brave young men and women of the Armed Services.  Now, a new definition of Country First is rising and it is from our Millionaires.

It’s time to call on a new group of people to defend this country.  It’s time to redefine country first.  We need to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, specifically for those making 250k or more a year.  Extending them will continue to put tremendous fiscal pressure on this country.  It is time we ask for a new type of sacrifice, from a new type of person — the millionaire.

Some are already heading the call — and for that we thank you!

Related articles

• “”Patriotic Millionaires” Asked to be Taxed More” and related posts (holycoast.blogspot.com)
• Why Asking For Higher Taxes Is Patriotic (247wallst.com)
• Millionaires Come Out for Higher Taxes (abcnews.go.com)

I read about it here, on TechCrunch (beware, it’s graphic.)  When asked, Amazon originally defended its position, saying they don’t censor.   Amazon’s response and Michael Arrington’s post on the response created a heated debate.  The debate was around freedom of speech.  Many folks felt requesting Amazon to remove it was in violation of free speech. GigOm and the New York Time also suggested this was a free speech issue.  I disagree.  This is not a free speech issue.

The most popular comment was this one:

“We are very much in favor of free speech. But ”

Like I said on MG’s post, once you include a ‘but’ then it is no more free speech. You use the exact same words as another commenter did: “I support free speech, but…”

People always say that just before proving that they don’t support free speech. It’s the human tendency to rationalize by compensation. Similar to someone saying “I’m not a racist, because I have black friends. But black people (insert racist stereotype here).”

Mike, you are clearly NOT a believer in free speech. You supported Facebook censoring Holocaust deniers, now you support Amazon censoring this author. That’s fine- you have the right to an opinion like anyone else. Just please stop the hypocritical “I support free speech but…” and be honest about your biases.

And posting excerpts of the book in the hope of inciting an emotional response and support for your view may work with readers that are not so smart. More intellectual readers will see through your transparent emotive manipulation. The objectionable nature of the excerpt only serves to reinforce the point that free speech arguments are only relevant precisely when someone is saying something disgusting that you don’t like.

I think this person got it all wrong, on two counts.  First, this isn’t a free speech issue and two, free speech has never been completely free.  It’s never been all or nothing as this person suggests.

Here was my response to his comment:

No matter how you try to slice it, free speech has never been completely free. This has been accepted for years. You can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, you can’t use language with the intent to incite riots etc. To suggest free speech is black or white, all or nothing is disingenuous at the least.

That being said, despite Michaels reference to free speech, this isn’t a free speech issue. Free speech is a right given and protected by the Gov. Free speech is alive and well here because:

1) The book has been written and can be sold openly
2) Amazon has the choice to carry it or not
3) You, me, or anyone else can buy the book, without legal reprisal

As it stands, free speech and our constitution are doing just fine.

This is an issue of values and individual/corporate responsibility. Facebook and Amazon are not the government, they have the right to sell what they want to sell or block what they want to block, just as we have the right to buy what we want or not buy what we don’t.

The disturbing part of Amazon’s decision is it appears to be in contrast to their own policies. I find it hard to believe Amazon would take this stance against a book title: How to Kill a Nigger and Not Get Caught or How to Get Away with Killing your EX Wife, that depicted real and tangible approaches to being successful.

Amazon has every RIGHT to sell what ever they want. They have the right to create their own policies, what is at issue here is how they are choosing to interpret their own policy. And I think that’s where they are dropping the ball.

I am a huge advocate of free speech.  I would never keep the KKK from marching and spewing their words.  However, I don’t believe free speech is a free for all. “But” has always been part of our definition of free speech. We have free speech “BUT” we can’t yell fire in a movie theatre.  We have free speech, “BUT” you can’t call someone a Nigger or Chink to their face and claim free speech.  We created “BUTS” to free speech a long time ago. I like the boundaries we’ve created.  They provide almost unfettered freedom, while still protecting society.  I also believe free speech is provided by the government and individuals and businesses have every right to choose their own boundaries with in that.

Amazon has every right to sell that book and the rest of us have the right to tell them to stop. If Amazon chooses to listen it’s not censorship or a violation of free speech, it’s just the opposite. It’s them exercising their right to say they don’t agree with that material and their not going to sell it.  If they choose not to listen, that’s them also exercising their right to sell what ever they want.

No matter what Amazon chose to do, free speech is doing just fine.

What do you think?

Is it censorship?

Is the authors freedom of speech being violated?

Is this a free speech issue?

Related articles

• Should Free Speech Cover Books On Pedophilia? (gigaom.com)
• Should Free Speech Cover Books on Pedophilia? (nytimes.com)
• Amazon pulls pedophilia manual after protest (hotair.com)

I then reminded myself that when I was born (1968) many people who looked like me couldn’t vote in U.S.   I reminded myself that people kill and were killed for the right to vote.  Most importantly, I believe in voting and not doing so would go against my own beliefs — so I voted.

Voting is the way we participate in government.  To not vote is the equivalent of abdication.  I’m not OK with that.   So I voted.

I was asked a great question yesterday.  ”Which is worse, ignorance or apathy.”   I thought it was a good question.  At first I thought ignorance.  As I thought about it further, I changed my mind.  It’s apathy.  When apathy is present people just don’t care.  You can’t mobilize the apathatic.  Ignorance can be addressed.  You can educate the ignorant.

Whether or not I can be called ignorant remains to be seen, but I can’t be called apathetic.  I voted!

I have my opinion on this, but I’m curious to your’s.

Has the stimulus plan worked?   If yes, why?  If no, why?

I’m curious.  Do you think Obama’s stimulus plan worked?

“Anger is not a strategy.”

He made it in refernce to the rise of the Tea Party.  I couldn’t agree with him more.   Anger has gripped this country and I don’t think it’s a good thing.  Anger never solves anything.   Rarely does anything positive come from anger.   There was an interesting post in today’s NY Times about TARP.  It suggests that the bailout may cost as little as 50 Billion dollars and could actually generate a profit for the U.S. Government when it’s all done, yet few politicians want to have their name attached to it because of Americas anger and distaste of it.   Anger is causing what may prove to be one of the most prudent and effective catastrophe avoiding moves in U.S. history to be vilified.

The biggest problem I see with the anger growing in America is that it is aimed at everyone else.  There is very little self-directed anger and this is the worse type of anger.   The blame game is brutal and unbelievably unproductive.  What exacerbates today’s blame game, primarily aimed at the rich, the government and freeloaders (those on government entitlement programs) is little accountability is being taken for our own actions.  The collective “WE” have made and are making a number of mistakes which have added to our collective demise.

A few thoughts:

• Only 59% of Americans graduate from college, that ranks us 12th out of the 36 developed countries. We are barely in the top 3rd.
• Only 60% of U.S. Citizens can pass a financial literacy test
• Only 64% of us voted in the last Presidential Election. (that 64% set a record)
• Atheists and agnostics know more about religion than those practicing the religion
• Total consumer debt is 2.42 trillion
• Average consumer carries $15,788 of debt on their credit cards (this is 30% of the median household income)
• Credit card default rate is 13%
• Credit card debt as a % of GDP is 3.6x GDP, up from 1.6x GDP in 1980
• Debt to income ratio in 2008 was 139% up from 62% in 1963 (that means the country is upside down)
• Spending has outpaced wages.  Spending has increased by 44% while wages have only increased by 32% between 2000 and 2007.
• 43% of Americans have LESS than 10K saved for retirement
• 66% of Americans have LESS than 50K saved for retirement
• Americans own on average 2.93 TV’s
• The “Great Recession” saw that largest increase in TV ownership
• 12% of the population smokes, spending $1,638 a year

As awful, sobering and saddening as these statistics are, there is one thing they aren’t, and that is someone else’s fault.  We, as individuals, own these stats.  They are ours and no one else’s.   No one kept us from going to college, no one forced us to smoke, no one made us spend more than we were making, no one keeps us form being financially literate, no one prevents us from saving.   Everyone of these statistics is driven by individual choice and it appears as a country we are making some bad choices.

The problems on Wall Street and Government mismanagement have exacerbated our situation.  To blame, Wall Street, or Obama, or Bush, or anyone else for our problems is palliative.   Growing up, when ever I would worry about other people or look to blame, my Dad would tell me to stop worrying about everyone else and just worry about yourself.   He’d say you can’t control everyone else, just worry about yourself and you’ll be OK.  This was good advice.

The anger and blame need to go away.   It’s time to look at ourselves as individuals.   It’s time to take personal stock and inventory of our own decisions.   If we did, I think we’d all have a lot less to be angry about.

I don’t believe we have a lot to be “angry” about.  I don’t think there is anyone to blame.   Anger and blame aren’t strategies.  We’re in a tough spot, because as a country, everysingle one of us MADE A CHOICE that put us here.  Now it’s time for all of us to get out of it.   The American dream and the American promise have not changed.   I just think we’ve lost sight of it.  Remember, it says; “Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness” not, Life, Liberty and the PROMISE of happiness.

How we chose to pursuit happiness is up to each of us and right now I think all of us can do a little soul searching.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Americans Are Angry, All Right — But at What? (politicsdaily.com)
• Dems try to deflect voter anger toward Wall Street (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Joan E. Dowlin: Tea Partiers Aren’t The Only Angry Ones (huffingtonpost.com)
• Zachary Karabell: The China Blame Game (huffingtonpost.com)

According to the Beveridge Curve and the second quarter’s JOLT’s Survey (Job Openings and Labor Turnover) the overall trend in new job openings has been positive, yet unemployment has remained unchanged.   Another way of putting this is, more employers are hiring as there are more job openings, yet unemployment is not declining.  Why?

It seems recessions hit some industries harder. For example, the construction industry is still losing jobs while healthcare is in growth mode.  In other words, recessions are industry specific, some industries get hammered, where others can prosper.  What the Beveridge curve hints at is people can’t make the transition from one industry to another.   It suggests people are waiting for their industry to return rather than switching to a new, growing industry.  This lack of transition is creating a very ineffecitent market.  Those looking for employees can’t find people with the skills and those looking for work aren’t trying to get the skills.  Put differently, the market is looking for and needs employees that don’t exist.   It’s not that there are no jobs, there just aren’t the jobs the unemployed can do.   This trend coming out of recession has been growing since the 70′s.

. . . in the 1974–75 recession and the recessions of the early 1980s the share of employment in industries continuing recession employment trends was around 50 percent. That share increased to 57 percent for the 1990–91 recession and rose sharply to 79 percent for the 2001 recession. The researchers took these findings as evidence of structural change playing a more significant role in influencing the labor market recovery from the 2001 recession than earlier recessions saw.

It is looking like the number of industries who are continuing recession employment trends for this recession is 65%.   That’s 65% of all industries are still loosing jobs, while 35% are adding or are remaining level.  Even more interesting, despite the large number of industries not hiring, more employers are adding jobs than people loosing jobs, as this chart suggests.

Notice the uptick in openings with little to no change in the unemployment rate.

People don’t like change.  We cling to what we know and look for change in small increments.   Unfortunately, there are times where change is our only course of action and inaction can be devastating.  I think we are there now.

We need to be progressive as a society and as individuals.  Looking to Obama and the government to fix things won’t solve the problem.  There is a lot of anger out there, yet we still control much of our own destiny.

Many of the jobs in the industries that are declining aren’t coming back.  We need to make the switch.  We need to retrain, we need to accept that our economy is changing and the jobs that once fueled it are being replaced by new jobs, not better jobs or worse jobs, just different jobs.

There are opportunities out there.   According to the Beverage Curve there are a lot of opportunities out there, more and more everyday.  We can hold on to what we know, blame the government, the republicans, the democrats, or the economy, or whatever cause we think desevers the blame or we can look for the opportunities and capitalize on them.

Holding on to the past, keeping things the way they were, rejecting change, or feeling entiteled are all options, but they aren’t solutions.

In difficult and challenging times there are always opportunities.   The Beveridge curve just pointed out one.  The question is, what are we going to do about it.