The fallacy of high tech jobs

Common Sense wonders are high tech jobs the future for American workers?  Or is all the talk of a high tech job growth wrong?

A year or so ago, Common Sense noted that middle class prosperity was historically based on a strong manufacturing economy.  However, the myth of "high tech economy" is clearly still with us.  Consider the central question: does technology create as many jobs as it destroys?  Does it create more? 

Certainly there are many examples where technology destroyed a great number of jobs in some industry.  Farming comes to mind.  Farm equipment technology dramatically reduced the number of people needed to produce food.  It, in fact, destroyed farming jobs.  Of course, someone had to make that farm equipment.  So many of those farm jobs were replaced by farm equipment manufacturing jobs.  But were they all, or did many displaced farm workers have to do something else? 

In an expanding economy finding something else to do is generally not extremely difficult.  The advent of farm equipment technology coincided with enormous growth in the standard of living and in manufacturing technology generally to support that higher standard of living.  With many more manufacturing jobs available moving from farm work to manufacturing work was relatively easy.  But is it always possible to move from one technology to another?  Is it possible to move if the economy isn't rapidly expanding?

In many ways advanced technology poses a very different job challenge.  It tends to replace much larger numbers of jobs without creating much change in the standard of living.  Consider, what happens when an automobile assembly line worker is replaced by a robot assembler.  That change doesn't necessarily change the cost of the car.  It doesn't much change the number of cars made.  Indeed, it might actually reduce the number of cars made since the cars are of generally higher quality and last longer.  Unfortunately, much advanced technology driven change simply destroys what were previously middle class jobs without creating offsetting economic growth.

Even when technology produces a new an innovative market, those markets are often saturated within only a few years.  Consider cell phones.  The basic technology was invented in the early 1970s.  The FCC licensed the first networks in the 1980s.  Today, some 30 years on, nearly everyone in the US that wants a cell phone has one and cellular providers now compete on features that are often only marginally useful in a frantic effort to maintain market share.  Market saturation for technology is often measured in only a few years or tens of years. 

When markets saturate they are then driven by replacement not growth.  Such markets produce often rapid job growth, then jobs plateau, and then jobs decline to a reasonably stable mature market.  Stable, replacement driven markets generally require fewer workers. 

Common Sense notes that "high tech" isn't some sort of magic incantation.  That it is in some ways inherently job destroying.  That it is in some ways unstable in that high tech jobs are created and vanish rapidly. 

As we think about economic recovery and preserving the middle class we need to keep these notions in mind.  That's just common sense.

Wingnuts, entertainment, and the media

Common Sense wonders, when did wingnuts become news worthy?  Does it make sense to give someone engaged in outrageous behavior designed to inflame a national platform?  Does someone spouting pure fabrication and outright lies warrant a 2 minute segment on every national news network?  Why does the media focus on the wingnuts?  Why doesn't the media focus on providing factual information about serious issues?  When did clearly partisan rants become an acceptable substitute for informed debate on national TV?  Is entertainment an acceptable substitute for news?

Common Sense is increasingly troubled by the "dumbing down" and ratings based entertainment value of what passes for news in contemporary news.  Indeed Common Sense thinks that the national media bears considerable responsibility for the hyper partisan show that passes for civil discourse on the national news.  Common Sense notes that The Donald spouting complete fabrication is entertaining but is it news?  Likewise, Glen Beck's bizarre rants and Sarah Palin's concoctions.  By giving a platform to wingnuts on the left and right big media makes itself clearly part of the problem.


While political distortion is expected, it is after all politics, how does purveying distortion substitute for providing factual information about serious public issues?  When we as a nation face serious issues such as health care or deficits is it OK for our national media to simply spout some interest party line an not actually provide a factual examination of the issues.  Why  isn't there serious coverage of tax breaks to big oil?  Is it enough to simply announce that big oil gets $4B yearly in tax breaks and not explain what those tax breaks are?  Is it OK to feature an industry representative spouting the party line about gas prices and not present the results of the CBO study about the $0.03 per gallon cost difference?   Common Sense thinks not.

The media has become fascinated with polls.  Often these are of rather doubtful or even no public value.  Consider some recent offerings from the CNN Cafferty file.  "Bigger issue for you if the election ere today: gas prices of Middle East?"  Are those my only choices?  When the respondents are entirely self selected is there any reason to think the results are meaningful in any way?  Or consider Common Sense's personal recent favorite:  "Is Donald Trump playing us for suckers?"  Yes or no.  How about this as a common sense answer, Donald Trump is playing CNN and the Cafferty file for a sucker who is in turn playing the American public for dumb suckers!  Common Sense thinks that such polls aren't simply useless and not news, such polls dumb down the public debate by substituting entertainment for fact.

Common Sense thinks that entertainment is no substitute for news.  Common Sense thinks that media in a free democratic society has an obligation to provide real factual information not ratings based entertainment.

Supreme Court skeptical that prescription data laws don’t violate free speech - The Washington Post

Supreme Court skeptical that prescription data laws don’t violate free speech - The Washington Post

Yet another example of no common sense being driven by big business.

Here's how it works.  You're ill.  You go see your doctor.  Your doctor prescribes medicine.  Now the prescription goes to your pharmacy.  The pharmacy fills the prescription.  Now here's where it gets interesting.  The pharmacy sells the prescription data to drug companies.  It strips out your identity but leaves in the doctor's identity.  The drug company, now armed with the prescription history of your doctor, knows whether your doctor uses less expensive drugs or generics or the drug companies' branded drug.  Thus armed the drug company can focus their marketing to promote their drug.

The case if being litigated as a business free speech case.  Common Sense wonders, to what degree is business marketing that potentially increases medical cost "free speech" under law?  Does business have a "free speech" interest in what doctors prescribe for their patients?  Common Sense thinks not. 

While marketing may well be speech, free speech does not include an inherent right to know what a doctor prescribes.  Quite the contrary, Common Sense thinks that doctors have a privacy interest in their prescription practices every bit as much as patients have a privacy interest in their drug use.

In addition all of us, government included, have an interest in the cost of medical care.  It doesn't make any sense, never mind common sense, to appeal to "free speech" when trying to justify a business practice that is clearly intended to increase drug profits by favoring branded drugs over generic and simply increases drug costs and the cost of medical care. 

Why do Americans spend more for and get less medical care?  Common Sense thinks that this bit of foolishness is part of the problem. 

Gay marriage: Proposition 8 supporters say ruling should be voided because judge is in a same-sex relationship - latimes.com

Gay marriage: Proposition 8 supporters say ruling should be voided because judge is in a same-sex relationship - latimes.com

The principal point behind the argument is that Judge Walker, who is in a long term gay relationship, should have and did not recuse himself and disclose his relationship.  The argument is that the judge had an interest in the outcome since being gay if the proposition passed he could then marry his companion.

Common Sense wrote previously that the notion of same sex marriage is largely tied up in the use of the word marriage instead of something like civil union.  The point being that people have an absolute right to equal treatment under the law regardless of gender.  Thus if government is to be involved in the relationship between a man and a women for a variety of purposes such as taxes, inheritance, medical rights, etc. then those same benefits should be extended to all couples regardless of gender.  Common Sense also notes that for most of human history neither religion or government was involved in marriage.

That said, Common Sense wonders that if Judge Walker should have recused himself because he is in a same sex relationship should then a married judge recuse because of being in a relationship?  After all, a married judge would also have an interest in the outcome.  How about an unmarried judge with a live in companion?  Or a judge with no interest in anyone of either sex?  Wouldn't they have an interest in the outcome?  Common sense dictates that there are some issues for which it is all but impossible to find a disinterested judge.

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, homosexuality is simply part of the human condition.  Study after study shows that a significant minority of humans are homosexual.  It offends Common Sense and simple decency to deny to those individuals the benefit in law that is given to others.  Equal protection under the law should mean just that.  That's just common sense.

Comparing Ryan's Medicare Plan to What Congress Gets - Uwe E. Reinhardt - NYTimes.com

Comparing Ryan's Medicare Plan to What Congress Gets - Uwe E. Reinhardt - NYTimes.com

Of particular note to Common Sense in this interesting article is the central notion that in the US medical cost consistently grow much faster than the consumer price index.  Certainly medical care is expensive, particularly for cutting edge procedures.   But why should it's cost grow two or three times faster than the CPI?

The cost growth of health care is particularly hard to justify given its performance.  Consider that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.  Clearly the US health care system is hardly one where costs and results are not reasonably related!  Clearly it is one that is simply not competitive! 

Common Sense thinks that health care is one of those things where free market principles simply don't work.  Consider that in New Hampshire the cost of a routine office visit varies by a factor of 4 between $49 and $200 with the majority of providers charging in the neighborhood of $100.  There is such a dramatic cost difference for medical services between the US and other countries that there is now a "medical tourism" industry! 

Common Sense thinks that we should focus much more attention on why medical care in the US cost so much and rather less on how we pay an essentially unreasonable bill for services that are not effective when judged by world standards!

Persistent claims about Obama’s birthplace force GOP candidates to make a touchy stand - The Washington Post

Persistent claims about Obama’s birthplace force GOP candidates to make a touchy stand - The Washington Post 

Common Sense wonders why would making a stand on an absurd and completely discredited bit of lunacy be "touchy."  Indeed, wouldn't it be fare more "touchy" not to completely reject this nonsense?

Going into the truth/falseness of the birther notion is at this point, well, pointless.  It is simply not true.  Moreover, its falseness has been abundantly documented.  Not only is it not true, even if it were true that Mr. Obama was not born in the Hawaii but elsewhere, as was former presidential candidate John McCain actually was, he would still be a natural born US citizen under the Constitution and the 14th amendment just as Mr McCain is.  Even were the "birthers" right on the facts, it's still "no foul."

Given reality then Common Sense wonders why would any presidential candidate have any issue with rejecting this lunatic conspiracy theory?  Do they not know that the Constitution and 14th amendment say?  Do they not have the courage to confront the lunatic fringe?  Do they want to be president so much that they will pander to any notion for the votes that might yield?  Have they no principles?

No matter what the motivation or underlying reason, Common Sense thinks that any presidential candidate that doesn't soundly reject the birther idiocy has no business running for president never mind actually being president.  Here Common Sense would note that even Michele Bachmann, someone given to some truly curious opinions, rejects the birthers.  It's time for all our presidential candidates to grow a pair and get over worrying about the "touchy" fringe in Common Sense's view.

The direct cost of Congress

Common Sense thought it might be interesting to take a more detailed look at what Congress, our employees, actually cost.  Now Congress is the Legislative branch.  It includes both the Congress proper and a number of supporting agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and the Library of Congress.  That said the overwhelming bulk of Legislative spending is Congress proper.  It turns out that the GAO and Treasury issue Financial Statements of the U.S. Government, usually in the December following the close of the federal fiscal year, which occurs September 30.  These detail actual spending as opposed to budget by various parts of the Federal Government including, happily for our purposes, the Legislative branch.

So Common Sense took a look and compiled the data.

To put this into some kind of perspective, the 1997 annualized CPI was 160.  In 2010 it was 218.  So in 13 years the CPI, that's a good measure of what you and I had to spend rose by a factor of 1.4.  On the other hand the cost of Congress increased by a factor of 2.5!

As the discussion of the national debt, controlling spending, and taxes goes forward Common Sense thinks that Congress should get a grip spending for itself.

How to double FY 2011 savings and save an additional $40 billion over the next 10 years

Even in an era of budget cuts, these government programs won’t die - The Washington Post

In brief the article that four programs that neither Republicans nor Democrats want and that both Republican and Democratic presidents have tried to cancel cost the US taxpayers $337 million a year.  Remarkably, contrary to all common sense, these programs were NOT defunded in the recent $38 billion 2011 budget deal.  You remember that deal; that's the one that actually saved $352 million in FY 2011 and some $20 to $25 billion in the next four years.

So here's a Common Sense suggestion to double FY 2011 actual savings; kill these four programs!

Common Sense notes that it cost the US taxpayers roughly $5 billion per year in direct expenses to pay and fund Congress.  That's not $5 billion in budget but a real expense against the treasury of $5 billion per year.  As a point of reference in 1963 when John Kennedy was president Congress costs a paltry $192 million!

So here's another Common Sense suggestion to save $40 billion over the next 10 years in addition to the $38/$25/$20 billion Congress could find.  Lets cut Congress's budget to $1 billion per year.  That's still 5 times what it was during the Kennedy administration.  Surely Congress can manage on five times what they once spent.

Common Sense wonders if Congress should be on the list of four programs that ought to be cut!  Common Sense definitely believes that Congress needs some, well, common sense when it comes to spending on itself; not just spending on the rest of us.

Sometimes the news is just to funny: Sarah Palin sticks up for Donald Trump - latimes.com

Sarah Palin sticks up for Donald Trump - latimes.com

What can Common Sense add.  Stunningly unqualified to be president Ms Palin speaking up for stunningly unqualified to be president The Donald!  Sometimes politics and the news is just to funny for words.

Ms Palin's point, such as it is, is that The Donald is just answering news media questions.  Therefore The Donald's birther nonsense is the news media's fault!  Presumably Ms Palin believes that The Donald didn't motivate the questions!  Yet another example of The Palin blaming the news media when they have the nerve to publish something that reflects badly on a public candidate.  Clearly common sense need not apply to either The Donald or The Palin!

Juxtaposed in the news: Arizona & Houston school shooting

Arizona governor veto gun bill
School shooting

Sometimes Common Sense can't help but wonder whatever happened to common sense?  Is evolution at fault?  Is it the politics and values of the lunatic fringe?  How did we get here?

On a positive note Arizona Republican governor Jan Brewer has the great good sense to veto the a bill that would have allowed guns on college campuses.  Having attended and taught at universities the notion of an armed student or instructor frightens Common Sense.  On one hand I remember a professor that had to be restrained by city police after threatening a women student in class in front of other students!  On the other I remember an instructor that required campus police protection when a student threatened her over a grade.  The student was eventually bared from campus, arrested, and placed in a mental institution.  Common Sense believes that adding a gun into these matters would make them worse, much worse, than they otherwise were.

As to the school shooting Common Sense can't begin to understand how a responsible gun owner could ever leave a weapon, never mind a loaded weapon, where a child could access it!  That strikes Common Sense as irresponsible to the point of civil and possibly criminal reckless endangerment.

As a point of reference Common Sense has no issue with guns or gun ownership.  Weapons are useful for sport and, sadly, occasionally necessary for self defense.  But simple common sense dictates that they are dangerous by their very nature.  As such common sense should apply to their storage and to where and when they are used.

PolitiFact | President Obama says Republican Medicare plan would cost people $6,400 more in 10 years

PolitiFact | President Obama says Republican Medicare plan would cost people $6,400 more in 10 years

Interesting piece on Medicare and the current debate. Common Sense believes that the proposed voucher 'solution' is just a way of stepping away from insuring that elders and the poor actually have reasonable health care. Many many of us have relatives and friends that use these programs. For my part both my parents' lives were extended and dramatically enhanced through Medicare. I've friends and relatives that depend on Medicaid to help them deal with long term debilitating illnesses.

Controlling the cost of medical services and thus Medicare and Medicaid expenses is clearly needed. Here it's worth noting that medical cost vary widely across treatment locations, often by factors of four or more. Indeed, Common Sense has relatives that travel to Mexico for some medical services. They note that they receive treatment by doctors trained in the US using US and EU manufactured equipment at costs a small fraction of US costs! Common Sense thinks that much of the problem with Medicare and Medicaid expenses is rooted in the US medical delivery system and its unreasonable cost structure.

S.&P. Lowers Outlook for U.S., Sending Stocks Down - NYTimes.com

S.&P. Lowers Outlook for U.S., Sending Stocks Down - NYTimes.com

Common Sense observes that it is entirely clear that actions have consequences. In this case what turned out to be entirely pointless partisan political gamesmanship (you do remember what the real budget savings were for 2011, don't you) the consequence is clear. S&P votes no confidence in the US Government. Common Sense hopes, as we all should, that Congress will take note and act responsibly to both control spending and rationalize taxes to bring the Federal budget into balance in the very near future. Certainly extending the debt ceiling quickly and without a repeat of the recent foolishness is just plain common sense. Beyond that it makes a great deal of common sense to quickly agree to a 2012 budget without holding the nation's government and now economy hostage to unrelated social agendas.

Solar Taxi - There are energy alternatives

YouTube - Swiss Solar Taxi Cruises to GW on Final City Stop of International Tour: ""

Interesting bit of fun.  Gives Common Sense pause about renewable energy.

Beneath Debt Debate, Hint of Agreement - NYTimes.com

Beneath Debt Debate, Hint of Agreement - NYTimes.com

Another view that there may be some common sense in Washington. One can only hope that extreme politics can be put aside and common sense solutions to spending and taxes, yes Virginia tax increases are required to address national debt, can be found.

‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com

‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com

Now and then Common Sense finds some, well, common sense. Perhaps the rest of Congress could take a lesson in how to govern from these senators. Perhaps, just perhaps, the political fringe could be interested for a bit in the welfare of US citizens. At least Common Sense hopes so.

In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com

In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com

This is an interesting and thoughtful article that's well worth reading. It has Common Sense thinking about the issues we face today and into the future.

Conservatives have made much of adhering to the founding principles of the United States. While these principles have served the US well they are not entirely fixed. Indeed, national constitutions are by their nature living documents that must evolve to meet changing conditions in the governed society and the world as a whole. That this is true is abundantly clear when one considers the history of nations.

Consider that when the US was created society and the world were much different places. Gigantic organized capital didn't exist in the way it does today. Neither did multinational corporations, or enormous financial institutions. There were far fewer people to govern. International trade was far different. Communications and travel far more difficult. Warfare not nearly as massively destructive. These and other changes in society and the world have, of necessity, lead to changes in the role Government should play in a just society.

Common Sense believes that the only justification for government is to provide for the welfare of the governed society.  It's worth remembering the preamble to the US Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those that call for adhering to founding principles should keep the preamble foremost in mind.  They should note that the basic motivation for the US government is clearly rooted in the welfare of the governed as a society.

This perspective has real implications in current debates about the role of government.  It provides a guiding principle that cuts through ideological purity to focus government action clearly on the needs of the governed.  It rejects the notions of a "nanny government" while recognizing that safe food, safe drugs, clean water, healthy air, and many other government programs in fact clearly address the general welfare.  Likewise, it rejects the notions of "minimalist government" and recognizes that it is a proper role of government to protect the govern from the abuses of  powerful forces and events well beyond the capacity of an individual to confront.

Common Sense's philosophy

What values inform Common Sense?  Here's some.

Common Sense is a pragmatist and believes that real problems need real solutions.  Adopting a rigid stand and applying it unthinkingly to all problems is not simply naive and foolish, it is often silly and preposterous to the point of being stupid.  Dogma doesn't solve problems.  Pragmatism does.

Common Sense is not a Democrat nor a Republican but thinks that neither of the two major political parties does a very good job of representing the American center.

Common Sense is not anti-business but believes that over the last 50 years or so big business has entirely abandoned social responsibility for America and its wellbeing.  To often business has become simply about profit not just as a necessary business goal but as the only goal at the expense of employees and often investors.  Big business, in particular, seems to have forgotten that without a healthy society business has no customers.

Common Sense is neither pro nor anti government but believes that government is absolutely necessary to insure the wellbeing of society there being no other justification for government.  Governments that fail to insure the wellbeing of their citizens don't last as the governed society doesn't last.  One need only look at the second and third world to understand this reality.

Common Sense believes that less government is almost always better than more government.  That said, it is a proper role of government to ensure that large organizations, ether businesses or social, do not abuse their power to the detriment of society as a whole.  As ever larger entities have become ever more common in American society it is increasingly necessary for government to engage this role.

Common Sense believes in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.  Social welfare programs are not inherently bad.  Indeed the evidence for their benefits is compelling.  But, social welfare programs need to be paid for.  The alternative is not simply an implicit tax on society, it is the diminishment and possible destruction of society.

Common Sense believes that it is an entirely appropriate role for government to act to create and insure a just and equitable society for societies that are not both just and equitable simply do not survive.  They fail, often by disruptive violence.

Common Sense believes in Democracy.  Common Sense also believes that when a majority tramples on the fundamental rights of  minorities they are nothing but a mob.  Democracy and pure majority rule are not the same thing.

Common Sense believes in free market economies.  The ability of such economies to generate goods and services for their customers is unequaled.  But, Common Sense also recognizes that not all issues can best be addressed by free markets.  Some issues, particularly social justice and welfare, do not admit to profit oriented market driven solutions.  Creating inexpensive shirts is not the same sort of problem as providing universal education.

Common Sense believes that facts are facts and as such are not malleable  to support some position.  Distortions and half truths do not help civil discourse particularly when difficult issues are involved.  While there are gray areas and complexities to be sure they are far less common than political discourse would have the public believe.

Common Sense believes that we are all in the American experiment together.  Shared goals, shared work, and when needed shared sacrifice is a central value in American society.  Those who forget this value do great damage to American society.  They diminish it and make America far less than it could be.

These values inform Common Sense's comments.

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post

So it seems that after much sound and fury and almost shutting down the Federal government that the actual money saved in the fiscal 2011 budget was $352 million dollars! That's right million not trillion, not even billion! When pressed both the House and Senate Congressional leaders argued that the cuts were real in that they set a lower base for future spending, more precisely by reducing spending authorization previously approved.

As the article points out, the Federal budget isn't a simple thing and spans multiple years. That's all good and well, but fails rather badly a common sense test. The Federal government has to continue to borrow very heavily to pay current bills not money appropriated but not yet actually spent! Not money in the future, but money today.

As of January 31, 2011, Treasury was $215 billion below the debt limit of $14.294 trillion. Now we're about to have to raise the Federal debt ceiling again. So in the last three or four months the Federal government has spent $215 billion more than tax revenue. OK, so while Congress almost shuts down the Federal government and saves a real $352 million in fiscal 2011 the Treasury borrowed $215 billion, some 600 times as much money in three months!

Common Sense wonders are we suppose to believe Congress is actually doing its job? While Common Sense doesn't think much of the Tea Party's extremest position to reduce spending while leaving taxes alone, they are entirely right that there is a real problem. Spending is certainly part of the problem, but so are taxes. A tax code that over $1 trillion in deductions and credits just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Common Sense thinks it's time to reform both real spending and real taxes. Common Sense thinks that it's time for Congress and the President to deal with Federal spending and taxes realistically. Claiming billions of savings when the actual number is millions while the Treasury borrows billions is not simply deceptive, it's a disservice to voters! It's also simply put a lie! Common Sense thinks that Americans deserve better, much better, from our employees.

Liers, dam liers, and pollsters

Common Sense is often troubled by some of the "polls" and poll results bandied about as support for one or another position.  Here's a classic case of a poll so biased as to be meaningless.

1) America, do you support the full repeal of President Obama's healthcare plan Congress passed in 2010? Yes, repeal it completely No, don’t repeal it at all No, repeal just parts of it

2) Should Congress restore $500 billion in Medicare benefits for seniors that the Obama plan cut? Yes, restore the Medicare benefits No, don't restore the Medicare benefits

3) Do you support President Obama's desire to give 12 million illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship? Yes, I support Obama's amnesty plan No, I oppose it

4) What do you believe Congress' top priority should be in 2011? Cutting spending Cutting taxes Paying down the national debt Improving the nation's security

5) Do you plan on voting to re-elect President Obama in 2012? Yes, re-elect No, for another candidate Not sure right now

6) America, who did you vote for in 2008? McCain - Palin Obama - Biden Other

So how is the poll biased. Consider:

1. Repeal of health care plan - There is no option to say "don't repeal it at all".  Nor is there any option to say "add a single payer option" or any other enhancement to the plan.  All you can say via the poll is "repeal" some or all of the plan.
2. Medicare benefit restoration - The question doesn't recognize provision of the health care plan that allowed the cuts without effecting Medicare recipients.  It's not possible to say "leave the plan along and let the cuts stand."
3. Amnesty for illegal aliens - Since there is actually no such plan the question is entirely bogus.  The so called "plan" is a figment of the radical right in the blogosphere and nothing more.
4. Congressional priority - No "other" choice.  Moreover the choices are drawn from the radical right agenda.  Additional no way to prioritize choices.
5. 2012 vote preference - Actually a fairly reasonable question.
6. 2008 vote - Another reasonable question.

Finally, the poll respondents are entirely self selected.  Without some sort of representative sample the poll is entirely meaningless!  Additionally, the "poll" is sponsored by a clearly partisan web site.

Common Sense thinks that when considering any poll result you ought to take a look at what the questions were, how the poll was conducted, and who conducted the poll.  Absent that poll results are just numbers masquerading as facts.  Far to often, in Common Sense's view, polls are little more than deception boarding on lies.

Republican presidential hopefuls - really Common Sense isn't kidding.

Latest CNN poll of Republican presidential hopefuls has Common Sense wondering.  Really?

Huckabee 19%  OK, so you remember Mr Huckabee from last round where he couldn't get nominated.  But hey, perhaps he's the little engine that could.  In case you forgot here's some of what he had to say last time:

• My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. ... Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. - Really?  Do we need a faith/religious based president?  Oh, and isn't there something about church and state!
• Huckabee teams with Chuck Norris - OK, so I like Chuck Norris but what does this have to do with governance?
• Mr. Huckabee wanted an AIDS quarantine and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk!"  Never mind the reality that AIDS is NOT contagious unless you manage to exchange body fluids and, really, homosexuality isn't ever contagious.
• Wanted to get rid of the IRS!  OK, Common Sense is almost tempted to agree as I don't like the IRS any better than anyone else.  But really, how are we supposed to pay for government?

Really, this is one of the leading candidates!  Surely the Republicans have someone better qualified who has some attachment to reality and common sense.

Trump 19% (+9) Now thanks to The Donald we all know this character: sometime successful businessman, reality TV show, tireless self promoter, and, lets not forget, zero experience in government and birther.  OK, so he's not as extreme as Huckabee, excepting the birther nonsense, but mostly his positions aren't known and, did I mention it, NO EXPERIENCE!  It might be worth recalling that former actor Ronald Regan had been governor of California, one of the largest economies in the world, before running for president.  The Donald is no Gipper!  There must be someone better surely.

Palin 12% Momma grizzly and former governor of Alaska is yesterday's news.  Couldn't get elected last time.  Someone had to explain to her that reading was a good idea.  Thinks "creation science," now there's an oxymoron, should be discussed in schools; opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion including in cases of rape, supports off shore drilling including the the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and is skeptical of global warming.  While Ms Palin is a more or less reliable source of amusement and does, in fact, have previous political experience she's hardly what one would call a bright policy light.

Oh, I almost forgot, she's a leading Tea Party member.  You know the Tea Party, that's the mob that wanted and almost succeeded in shutting down the Federal Government and is setting itself up for a repeat with the Federal debt ceiling.  Oh, she also applauded The Donald's birther initiative.  Perhaps it's time for the Republicans to just say no to Sarah.

Gingrich 11% (-3) By comparison not such a bad notion.  But only by comparison to some truly bad potential candidates.  Opposes EPA regulation of carbon emissions (never mind global warming), supports a no tax energy policy, pro flex fuel, pro drilling everywhere, opposed Wall Street bailout, opposes health care reform and favors market based health care, and actually has real substantive experience with government.

OK, Common Sense has to admit that Mr Gingrich isn't anywhere near as bad as the leaders.  But, his positions are clearly well right of center.  Common Sense isn't comfortable with that.

Romney 11% (-7) Tried once and didn't get elected.  Actually a closet centrist with right leanings.  Has real experience in politics as the former governor of Massachusetts but no federal experience.  Still and all a fairly reasonable candidate on the facts.  But he's 61 points down thanks to the Tea Party's influence so it's not at all clear is he can get nominated.  If nominated we'll all enjoy a truly interesting election cycle.

Paul 7% (-1) Twice failed presidential candidate.  An even better source of news than Ms Palin though, sadly, not so much in the news these days.  Principled but extreme and clearly can't get nominated.

Bachmann 5% (+5) If ignoring facts and just plain lying would do it Ms Bachmann would win the nomination handily.  Even so this Tea Party favorite is completely and utterly unelectable, as well she should be.

Daniels 3%, Pawlenty 2% (-1), Santorum 2% (-1), Barbour * (-1) OK, I know these folks are running but much as they think they may be real presidential material they're clearly not real presidential candidates.  Perhaps they are running for VP?

So there's the current Republican field with two candidates that might be electable, three that are so far to the extreme radical right that it's not clear that even the Tea Party activist can get them nominated and if they were they couldn't get elected, and five also ran candidates that aren't serious candidates for anything but VP.

But here's the puzzling thing, in an environment where Mr Obama is almost certainly vulnerable why is the Republican party spending so much energy on so many potential candidates that are almost entirely unelectable?  Why have moderate and progressive Republicans ceded conservative control to the extreme radical right?

Common Sense believes that absent a centrist political party there needs to be a reasoned balance between conservatives and liberals in Congress.  It's important that the Republicans don't let their party be overrun by the Tea Party extremest.

Common sense and the Federal budget

What's wrong with spending cuts?  Nothing really.  But, when you think about budgets there's another side - income.  If all Congress and the President does is look at spending then they ignore one of the most valuable budget balancing measures - taxes.

Think not?  Here are the facts.

According to the President's Debt Commission reforming the tax code by 1) lowering tax rates for individuals and corporations, and 2) reducing or eliminating tax breaks in the tax code would yield over $1 trillion, that's right TRILLION, in additional tax income!  Depending on which version of the numbers you like the 2010 deficit is $1.3 trillion.  Simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax breaks by itself solves way more than half the problem!  Even if all tax breaks were not eliminated, say the mortgage interest deduction, tax rates could still be reduced, though not as much, and still yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue!

Adopting President Obama's proposed increased taxes on individuals making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 would yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO!  Perhaps the most well to do Americans should pay a bit more.

Letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would yield over $3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO.  You remember the Bush era that lead up to the near collapse of the US financial services industry and trillion dollar Federal bailouts that contributed to ballooning Federal deficits.  Perhaps they weren't all such a good idea.

Common Sense's point is that balancing a budget and reducing debt is about BOTH controlling spending and generating revenue.  To try and solve the budget deficits by focusing only on spending will lead to gutting programs that benefit many, often the most vulnerable, Americans like your parents on Medicare or the single mother that can't afford to feed her children while working a minimum wage job and needs food stamps.  Common Sense thinks America is better than that, much better.

Making changes to the tax code that eliminate corporate welfare, reduce or eliminate excessive and irresponsible tax breaks for everyone, and have more reasonable rates for everyone is just plain common sense.  Not doing so because it offends the purity of political dogma is not only irresponsible but clearly leads to devastating social outcomes that ultimately are bad for all Americans.  It's time for some common sense discussions about taxes.

More cultural imperialism from the House Republicians

Common Sense is glad that the government didn't shut down but along the way it seems that the District of Columbia, while not a state it IS part of the United States, got a taste of cultural imperialism.  It seems that Congress, who must approve DC's budget, has decided that a) DC can't spend it's tax money on abortions, b) DC can't spend it's tax money on needle exchange, and c) DC must reinstate a school voucher program!

So Common Sense wonders, is it OK for Congress to tell a city, even a Federal city, how it can, can not, and must spend it's own tax money?  Is it OK for Congressional Representatives who are NOT elected from a city to dictate how that city must spend it's money?

Common Sense thinks that the answer to both questions is that it's NOT OK, most emphatically NOT OK!  There are many reasons why.

First, it is a basic principal of our democratic government that all citizens have some basic civil rights including representation.  In the case of DC citizens do not in fact have voting representation!  The reasons are historical and somewhat artificial but DC is a Federal city and not represented by any voting member of Congress.  The net is that Congress is passing laws for a group of US citizens that they do NOT in fact represent.  You may recall from your history class that previously this caused a bit of trouble between Great Britain and the American Colonies.

Second, the money involved isn't in fact Federal money!  Rather, it is tax revenue paid by the citizens of the District of Columbia.  One can only imagine what would happen if Congress attempted to tell any other US city how to spend it's tax revenue.  Common Sense would grant the DC has a rather spotty history of governance but, and it's an important but, so do many other US cities.  Congress can't intervene in those cities.  Why then should Congress be allowed to intervene in DC?

Third, many of Congress's actions will almost certainly make the issues worse not better.  They are nothing more than cultural imperialism and social purity.  Consider needle exchange.  Common Sense recognizes that drug addiction is bad, very bad.  As a society we should combat it however we can including drug intradiction, prosecution, treatment, and anything else that might arguably help.  There are several reasons for this some humane such as limiting the harm people can do to themselves and some practical such as stopping crime.  But all said and done it's clear that we haven't had much luck with drug trafficking and addiction.  So there will be drug users in DC.  There will be needles.  We can choose to provide clean, disease free needles or we can choose to treat dirty needle diseases in publicly funded hospitals.  Where needle exchanges have been allowed they have generally resulted in much less disease and somewhat less drug addiction!  Cultural purity isn't a substitute for common sense when it comes to real problems.  Much the same sorts of arguments can be made about abortions.  Which do you think is better a) an unwanted child born into poverty, likely to require social support, and almost certainly to end in crime; or b) an abortion however objectionable.  When it comes to education which do you think best serves the citizens of DC a) diffusion of limited school funds to support vouchers, or b) spending trying to do something about one of the worst school systems in the country.  When it's said and done Congresses cultural interference isn't good governance.

What surprises Common Sense is that this is just the sort of Federal interference in local government the Republican right normally opposed on principal.  Perhaps it's not so much about principal then but just a case of aggressive ideological purity forced on US citizens not represented in Congress.

Governance and cultural and social ideology

This last weeks nonsense about the budgets has Common Sense wondering: What role should cultural and social ideology play in governance?

The question turns out to be in many ways central to democratic governance.  Laws and social policies are in fact a reflection of shared values and perspectives.  Some of these are widely accepted.  With few exceptions it's wrong to kill each other.  Others, such as abortion rights, are rather more controversial.  It is in these areas where democracy struggles, where it is difficult to answer the essential question of what is good for the country as a whole and people as individuals.

While these kinds of questions are never been easy in a democracy, of late Common Sense thinks that they have become much more difficult.  Indeed, it seems that increasingly idealogical purity has replaced reasoned discourse.  This makes reaching a reasonable consensus not just far more difficult but virtually impossible.  Sadly, this failure often threatens to aggravate the very issue being addressed, to make the problem worse, not better.

As a case in point consider the recent battle over Planned Parenthood funding.  It is a fact that Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services including abortion referrals.  It is also a fact that under existing Federal law it is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use Federal funds for abortions.  As a consequence the organization has created a wall between it's other Federally funded activities and it's abortion services.  Those are indisputable facts.  A number of studies have shown rather conclusively that if Planned Parenthood were defunded that among the consequences would be serious deterioration of health among poor women and, this is the part that matters here, an increase in abortions as absent birth control services more unplanned pregnancies occur. The common sense consequence is that defunding Planned Parenthood makes the issue of abortions worse, not better.  The net is that if you oppose abortion or simply regard it as a tragedy it makes good sense to fund Planned Parenthood and other agencies that help women avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Common Sense thinks that real problems, particularly difficult issues, need real common sense solutions.  Abortion is a tragedy.  Idealogical purity driven social and cultural chauvinism that creates more abortions is plainly immoral in Common Sense's view.

Perhaps if this were the only example Common Sense could excuse it as one of those things where feelings are so strong that common ground simply doesn't exist.  Sadly, it's not.  Last week saw enforcement of the Clean Air laws and Medicare privatization at issue over similar cultural chauvinism.

The Tea Party won some seats in Congress.  It's caucus list 52 members.  The House has 435 members.  That means that the Tea Party represents about 12% of the house.  It's also worth noting that 2 in 3, 66%, of Tea Party candidates LOST their election bid.  The Tea Party is clearly a minority.  They clearly do not represent a majority of Americans.  That said, they are a significant minority.  As Common Sense has previously noted, tyranny by the majority is not acceptable in a democracy.  The Tea Party voice clearly deserves to be heard.  However, having a voice and holding the country hostage isn't acceptable.  Tyranny by a minority is every bit as unacceptable, particularly when it aggravates the very issues it purports to address, holds active duty military families hostage and threatens the welfare of all Americans.

America deserves better from Congress and our elected representatives including the Tea Party.  That's just a common sense perspective.

Does the President really matter? Not so much!

The ongoing nonsense with the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering: does the President really matter?  Common Sense thinks "not so much!"   Consider what we all just saw.

Round 1 back in 2010 when Congress was supposed to pass a budget.  Remember back then when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.  President Obama proposed a budget.  It didn't get passed.  Among the reasons was that then House Speaker Ms. Pelosi couldn't get the Democratic House to agree.  Of course getting the Democrats, or as we have recently learned the Republicans, to agree is rather like herding cats.  But, hey, what do you expect when you don't elect adults to Congress.  The point is that President Obama didn't really matter.  The House Speaker couldn't get her own caucus to agree to a budget!

Spin forward a bit.  Now we have a Republican House with a radical right committed to both less spending and extreme right cultural ideology.  In this case Mr. Boehner couldn't get his caucus to agree.  So we still don't have a budget for the current fiscal year.  In this most recent round there was a very private, that is to say the American public who has to live with the result doesn't get to know what transpired, negotiation between House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  While it's true that President Obama had a voice, when it came right down to it the Congress lead by the Speaker and Majority Leader had to act BEFORE President Obama even mattered!

That's Common Sense's point.  While the President has considerable power in some areas when it comes to legislation he is virtually impotent!  It's Congress that passes legislation!  Without a Congress willing to act in the interest of the American people the President doesn't matter very much!

In recent years Presidents used to have rather more influence on Congress.  Likewise, Congressional leaders could actually lead.  But today things have changed.  Today we have undisciplined political parties,  particularly on the right.  We have representatives that are not especially interested in good governance for the American people but in cultural ideology.

In Common Sense's view, Congress is badly broken and congressional reform long overdue.  It's time we focused less on who's President and more, much more, on who we elect to Congress.  It's time we stopped voting for cultural and ideological demagogues and started electing common sense adults interested in the good of the American public!

Should employees that don't do their job be paid?

The most recent nonsense about the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering, why do we continue to pay congress when they don't do their job?  In the real world if you or I don't do our job for 6 months we get fired.  But congressmen are apparently immune to the the realities the average citizen has to deal with.  They continue to get paid and don't get fired!  Why is this?

Common Sense thinks it's time that's changed.  Perhaps it time congressional pay is tied to performance.  Who knows, perhaps performance based compensation would put a stop to the incessant idealogical purity wars, talking points imitating for reason, and political posturing.  Perhaps no pay would cause the worst of the ideologues out of congress and allow some common sense legislators to be elected.  Just a common sense POV.

The federal budget and taxes

The Federal budget deficit is once again, or still depending on your POV, in the news.  It seems time for a bit of common sense.

Lets start with the basics.  There are fundamentally only two ways to balance a budget.  One is to cut spending.  That's really popular now with Republicans in congress.  But there is another way.  That's to increase income.  That's not at all popular in congress since it means increasing taxes.

While much attention is being focused on spending Common Sense thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at taxes.  Now Common Sense knows that no one, Common Sense included, likes paying taxes.  But that said, everyone enjoys the benefits that taxes provide.  So ultimately what really needs to be considered are tax rates.

Here is a link to some interesting historical tax rate information.  Here's the story in an easily digested graphic.

However you feel about taxes you should note that tax rates are historically low.   If you look not at the marginal rate but the effective rate (the net rate paid on total income) you get a picture like this:

What's clear here is that one cause of budget deficits is that our taxes are historically low!  That's not to say, of course, that spending is an issue.  It is.  Rather it's that one of the reason the deficit is so large is that taxes are low.


It turns out that if you look at the data from almost all reasonably factual sources you'll find the same results.  


Common Sense thinks that while we're looking at budgets and spending it makes just good common sense to also look at taxes.  Just a POV.

Religious bigotry and getting along

The recent events surrounding the burning of a Quran trouble Common Sense on several levels.

It's profoundly troubling that an alleged Christian pastor, Terry Jones, would burn a Quran.  Book burning, particularly religious book burning, is intolerable in a country where religious freedoms are guaranteed.  Mr Jones act is little more than a pathetic attempt to get his name in the news again.  In Common Sense's view it is revolting and pitiable both.  Had the resulting violence occurred in the United States he might well be charged with incitement to violence.  That he calls himself a Christian must surely offend other Christians.

Of course course the story doesn't end with a bigoted act.  Alleged Muslims in Afghanistan decided that the way to deal with the act of a single individual in another country was violent demonstration leading to many deaths and injuries including the murder of U.N. employees.  People that had no part whatsoever in the act.  People who weren't even from the same country.  Innocent people.

Neither Mr. Jones' acts or those of the demonstrators are acceptable in Common Sense's view.  Both are simple bigotry.  Both are profoundly wrong.  Both should be rejected and condemned.

In Common Sense's view such acts only inflame unreasoned bigotry and hatred.  Such acts support the worst view of Islam and Christianity.  Such acts offend decency.  Such acts support the evil stereotypes of Mr. Jones and his like just as they support the evil stereotypes of hateful Mullahs.

Without speaking to my religious beliefs or lack thereof, Common Sense has read the bible, both the old and new testament.  Common Sense has also read the Quran,  Buddhist texts,  Hindu texts, and studied comparative religion.  Nowhere in these religious texts did I find support for religious hatred such as Mr. Jones exhibited.  Nor did I find support for killing innocents as a remedy for alleged offense as happened in Afganistan.  While there are surely hateful people of various religious persuasions that can find some out of context text to justify their hatred and evil acts, such people are in Common Sense's view not religious but rather pitiable and often ignorant fanatics that turn to religion to support their own hatreds.

Common Sense is reminded of one of the most important quotes from the 20th century:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....They won the battle, but they haven't won the war....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out."

It's worth remembering that Mr. King was speaking after having been savagely beaten by police.  His remarks should inspire us all.  Common Sense thinks that we are all stuck here while we're alive and that we should all try to work it out and get along.

Sources of Federal Income

GE was in the news this mourning.  It turns out that GE paid no taxes on 14 billion in corporate earnings in their last fiscal year!  For most Americans, certainly for the very many that are struggling to make ends meet and looking painfully at their tax bill, this news hasn't gone down well at all.  Here's some common sense.

Common Sense first notes that what GE did to eliminate their Federal Tax liability is entirely legal and above board.  So if you think that it's not right that $14 billion in corporate earnings shouldn't be taxed at 0% your complaint shouldn't be with GE.  After all, they are just following the tax code.  You know, the tax laws passed by our elected congress whose campaigns are financed by now unlimited corporate campaign contributions (at least according to the Supreme Court).

So Common Sense thought it might be interesting to look at sources of Federal income and why corporations are taxed as they are.

In the United States the way we tax corporations, individuals including wealthy individuals has varied considerably over time.  Here's a chart that's informative and a link to the data.

In the late 1930s corporate and individual taxes were about equal and most Federal income came from other sources.  Starting in the mid 1940s taxes from individuals started to climb as a percent of federal spending and taxes from corporations started to fall.  This trend has continued through today and is expected to continue into the future.  This chart focuses on this trend.

Clearly in the mid 1940s corporate tax revenue as a percent of Federal revenue began a more or less steady decline and individual tax revenue rose above 40% where it has stayed.  This change reflects changes in tax laws particularly the way we tax corporations.

The obvious common sense question is are corporations being taxed fairly or has Congress created a tax code that unfairly benefits corporations?  How should corporations be taxed?

These are questions for another day.  What Common Sense has shown is that over the last 70 years or so the Federal tax burden has been shifted dramatically onto individuals.