A Cat Tale

            Not long ago, Deemon O’Flaherty, the illustrious lawyer whose “life of crime” is the storied stuff of legend around here, allowed as how I should get a cat.

            “Don’t you think that would upset my ferocious dog, Woof Man,” I asked?

            “Pffffttt,” he sputtered, wasting at least a half ounce of lovely, approachable, heady-nosed Middleton Barry Crockett.  “Woof Man is a long-haired Chihuahua,” he spat, “What in all the tales of Erin does he have to say about it?!!  Is his little hair going to stand on end?”

            “You scoff,” I retorted, “but he is a dog of regal bearing, and considerable popularity, not to mention fearless, faithful, and of frugal upkeep!”

            “Sure, and a canine of significantly less flatulence than your own upstanding self, I’ve no doubt. But a cat…”  He wandered into his own thoughts for a brief pause.  It is a tactic he uses to advantage when addressing juries full of tough-on-crime stalwarts.  Presently, he looked directly at me.  “These days,” he expounded, “there are a lot of crazies making bombs.  Can your diminutive Doberman sniff out a bomb?”

            “What?!  That takes specialized training.  Anyway, what do I need with a bomb-sniffing Chihuahua?  Woof Man is just fine as he is.”

            “Well, you have to admit, it’s a useful talent, and you’re never going to be able to learn it yourself, are you now?”

            “What are you driving at?”

            “It happens, as a fine figment of fate, that one of my very own acquaintances from the world of legal ambiguity, possesses a cat for which he can no longer care due to a sentencing mishap.  This cat has been trained to sniff out explosives! “

            I studiously sipped my glass of amber iced tea to avoid exploding in laughter.  Only a man such as Deemon O’Flaherty would have noticed the curl of a grin that I forced out of my mouth at the rim of the glass.  And only he would have noticed the little sputter I concealed as I sipped.

            “So what does this cat do when it finds a bomb,” I asked?  “Does it wink its little eye and mutter arghh?  Does it nod its little grey head?”

            “Yellow,” he said.  “It’s a yellow tabby cat.”  His demeanor was serious, trying to overcome both our urges to burst out laughing.

            “And???”

            “It sticks its little tail out straight as an arrow, and scratches with its little back feet.” He quickly turned away and sipped his Middleton, then held the glass up to the light to study it.

            “All right, Deemon.  I’ll take the cat for you.  What’s its name?”

            “Griswold,” he answered turning back to me with a smile. “But it doesn’t matter, he won’t answer to it.  He’s in the car.  I’ll go get him.”

            I took the cat in my arms—he seemed friendly enough. “Griswold won’t do,” I said as he purred.  I’m changing his name to Cheddar Bake.  From now on, you are my bomb-sniffing cat, Cheddar Bake.”  O’Flaherty winced, but then smiled.  Then Cheddar Bake spotted Woof Man (who had been quietly eying him).  His tail shot out straight as an arrow as he turned in my arms.  He began pawing with his back legs and he let out a low growl.  I swear to God it sounded like he said “Arghh.”

Real World Economics 1.2

           As conservatives and liberals who acknowledge the need to work together to arrive as a successful society into the 22^nd Century, we need to deal with the impacts of economic change in a way that brings along those negatively affected and capitalizes the strengths of our ingenuity and those positively affected.

We need to find government’s place in the mix. We need Congress. We just need it to act like an adult. I’m not saying it should be allowed to drink yet. But baby Congress is past puberty now, and needs to take public citizenship seriously. Polarization was ever so prepubescently entertaining, but now it’s time to produce. Americans are sick of “talking point” politics. No more smarting off. No more ‘Kick the Can.’ “Outsiders” are banging on the gates of government! It’s time to solve old problems, anticipate new ones, and get America moving—not as liberals or conservatives, but as Americans. That won’t be done by any President—our economic problems trace directly back to Congress.

Around here, we think it should be illegal to hide money from the taxman overseas. We think a higher national minimum wage is needed. We think if you leave education to the States, you’ll get the crap they have in Texas, and if you follow the Libertarian mantra, you’ll get the tax stupidity they have in Kansas, and that Governors in Nebraska and Kentucky lust for. And if you leave voting rights to the states…..well, you know. Some things the fed gov needs to do. We think a flat tax would unfairly burden all but the richest Americans, and wonder why businesses get to deduct expenses but individuals don’t.

It’s clear the War on Drugs, and bank & financial market regulation are not working. And how about that self-perpetuating, war-industry-enriching War on Terror. If that doesn’t terrify you, what’s it gonna take? It’s clear that “corporate citizenship” is mostly gone, and that corporations are not people and money is not speech. We think church and state should be separate and that government is properly secular.

Why don’t YOU sound off and help America fix the real economy? The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Real World Economics 1.1

Capitalists need consumers who both spend and save.  Consumers need investors for employment that enables them to both spend and save.  If not “either / or” (capitalists or consumers), then where is the middle ground?

For starters, let’s accept that we can’t go back to “Grapes of Wrath” America.  We’ve learned what happens when working people have to survive with neither bargaining power nor safety nets.  We’ve also learned we can’t rely on Capitalism to help when economic bubbles burst, or when we suffer periodic economy-wide melt downs. That’s what gave rise to assistance and annuity programs.  Our society gains nothing from lassiez faire poverty.  Capitalism should be allowed to make its corrections, but without starving, crippling or killing people.  

So as long as taxpayers are paying for corporate welfare, it won’t work for America to cancel unemployment insurance, individual welfare, and food and housing assistance, and eliminate instead of raising the minimum wage.  Closet benefit reduction schemes to voucherize social safety net programs may gain some traction, but depriving needy Americans while the deep state foxes gorge themselves on freebies is a ticket to serious social unrest—the evidence is everywhere. 

In case you haven’t noticed, good primary-earner jobs are getting harder to come by, especially for generalists without college degrees, and job seekers without technical training.  Let’s recognize that jobs are disappearing and will continue to disappear at an accelerating rate throughout the 21^st Century.  Technology and outsourcing will change the face of employment in this country.  If you don’t see that, you aren’t paying attention.

So proposals to achieve full manufacturing employment, a middle class boom, and college for every child by taxing wealthy citizens like it’s 1950 are both unlikely to succeed and beside the point.

Around here, it seems the bottom line is that we don’t need liberals and we don’t need conservatives—we need each other, as fellow citizens.  And that need will become more painfully evident as the 21^st century unfolds.

Real World Economics 1.0

           We need to clear something up. Conservatives say that the economy can’t thrive without capitalists willing and able to risk money to produce goods, and employ workers. Meanwhile, liberals say that the economy is driven by consumer demand that employs capitalists. The tax implications of each of these apparently opposite belief systems are significant.

One side wants to eliminate taxes on capitalists, eliminate regulations that burden them, and eliminate minimum wages that they say keep them from hiring some people. Further, they want assistance programs ended because they counter- productively support people who would otherwise be energized to accept lower paid work or to accept work that safety net programs make economically unfeasible. The absence of these programs would also energize people to take care of them selves by saving for contingencies. They believe the government can neither afford to support needy people nor make good on its annuity commitments or deposit guarantees, and they want to sell off or privatize government assets.

The other side wants safety net programs protected and expanded by raising taxes on the rich—the oligarchs who they believe just want to further line their pockets at the expense of working people. They believe corporations and the very rich are not paying their share of taxes, and that consumers, not capitalists, make the economy thrive. They hold that government is employer of last resort and Keynesian economic leveler in times of turmoil.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. Capitalists need consumers who can afford to spend, and consumers need employment that allows them to both live decently and save. Congress has screwed things up so badly that the government needs consumers to spend, not save, and it needs capitalists to keep giving Congress money so they can campaign to maintain power.

The rub these days is that very few people earning the national minimum wage can afford to both live and save for contingencies. In reality, minimum wage jobs are mostly home to adults who need to support a family, not mewling and puking babies who just need a foot in the door. If you’re a displaced coal miner, and all you can find is work that pays $7.25 an hour, you can’t keep six kids in doctors, shoes, shelter, school and gruel, and save. The reality is that CEO’s, financiers, and fat legislators who make top incomes every year have no standing to call for elimination of safety nets and scrapping minimum wages. The reality is that people who think the country can provide a wish list full of benefits by just taxing the rich are relying on murky math and childish selfishness, not egalitarian principles.

Around here, we have one magic answer: if you think one side or the other is entirely correct, you are entirely wrong. Congress is the lab-rat experiment that proves “either / or” produces only damaging gridlock and obstruction.

Early House Recess, (or The Ryan Boogie)

           It’s sad that US House of Representatives minority politicians think they must resort to a sit-in to be heard. It is sad that majority politicians folded their tents and left (early). Guess they just didn’t want to hear about it. This is the logical conclusion of bull headed obstructionism. Tax payers pay Congress a great deal of money, and all they can manage on gun legislation is “thoughts and prayers.”

           Lewis wanted votes on gun legislation. That sent a shiver scurrying along the majority benches looking for a spine to run up. They were nowhere to be found. They couldn’t stay and be counted. Lewis is right—his position is being farted off. Ryan is right—it’s against House rules to take this vote. 

          So what happens, Ryan, if you temporarily suspend the rules to deal with a genuine constituent concern such as gun legislation? Does someone suddenly appear and rap your knuckles with a ruler?

           Right. So let’s not try to BS anybody that this is anything but political street fighting. And when it comes to bull headed obstruction, most Americans know who has been carrying that ball for several years. You can say you did your job and went home, but really you just went home. You boogied!

           Around here, we’d like to see the majority party do a little less of the Ryan Boogie and a little more of the peoples' business. We’ve been waiting, while obstructionists praise themselves for personal courage and see that nothing gets done.

Thinking In Different Frames Of Reference

          When a situation requires your action, think carefully. Don’t just do what’s expected! Consider your approach by applying the 5 “W’s” and the “H” observed by every competent journalist: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?

           If action is needed, who should do it? You may be expected to, but who, really, is best able to take the action needed? Do you need to delegate, or get assistance, or arrange for witnesses?

           What is the essential outcome? Others will always ‘know’ what you should do, but what do you want to accomplish, or have accomplished for you, and what is the best way to get there? What do YOU think needs to be done?

           When should it be done, for best results? Very often, the answer is NOW. But not always. What are the needs of everyone involved? Keep your objective in sight.

           Where should the deal go down? Your territory or their space? Public or private? What perception do you want to create for principals or observers?

           Why is the action you’ve chosen the best way to get to your objective? Why is it thoughtful and not just a destructive knee-jerk.

           How do you preserve everyone’s dignity as much as possible, honor the people involved, avoid others’ mistakes or obstacles, and achieve the goal that YOU set, to protect the interests of your family, associates, country, employment, or beliefs?

           Around here, whether you’re being proactive or reactive, these are the starting points for thinking in different frames of reference.

Hood Robin And The Bigots

          For scores of years, some Americans have cloaked bigotry and racism with polite “code phrases” that shield their users from disdain. Phrases like, “urban problem” which relates to African Americans; “family values” which places some racial groups, who can’t afford to live in families, opposite poor whites, who can’t afford not to, let alone affluent people who may choose family life; and “immigration problem” which means Asians and Hispanics and dark skinned others, who have, or might take desirable jobs.

           Then the 2016 Presidential campaign comes, and with it a street-wise scrapper who foregoes the niceties of polite discourse. He calls Mexicans criminals and rapists, proposes deporting millions of people, deplores Black Lives Matter, supports violence against protesters, and shows crass disrespect for women. America’s bigots respond enthusiastically. To the international embarrassment of America, they avidly support his snot-nosed petulance, and lack of substance.

           He is the logical conclusion of the greed, privilege, obstinacy, and stupidity of exclusive VS. inclusive thinking. And his nearest competitor is even worse. While he and his ilk want to divide Americans because of economic difficulty, America’s real economic issues go begging. Like, why are there too few jobs, why is our infrastructure crumbling, why is the government short of money, and why isn’t congress addressing America’s needs?

           Around here, we think people need to ignore the manipulators and get busy supporting what has and will continue to make America great. Community, diversity, immigration, and innovation. And certainly not the “reverse Robin Hood” tax concepts of demagogues.