Let's Talk About Those Pussyhats

 A few of my conservative friends posted their misgivings on social media about the wearing of “pussyhats” during the Women’s March on Washington last weekend.  Some of the comments were, “it is vulgar”, “it is demeaning to women”, “a v-hat marginalizes and degrades their message”, “it crossed a moral line”, and "what if men wore phallic symbols?".  Ok snowflakes, here’s the deal:


First of all, the pink hats are not vag-hats or V-hats.  They are kitten ear hats!  And they are pink because pink is a girl color!  That these feminine-hued kitten hats are being viewed as a vag-hat says much more about the people seeing them that way than those who created them.  The organizer of the pussyhat movement states quite clearly the intent of the hat on her website www.pussyhatproject.com.  She admits to the double entendre of the pussyhat as a play on words to dig at Trump’s womanizing statements, but she never intended to depict anything more.  And if the hat were intended to symbolize the vagina - big deal!  It is argued that the U.S. Capitol dome is a phallic symbol, along with the Washington Memorial, the Empire State Building, and many other towers throughout America. They are offensive only to those who visualize it that way, and most of us do not.

Any Trump supporter who condemns the wearing of a home-made garment as a symbol of solidarity and peaceful protest by saying it is “offensive” has now jumped into the realm of hypocritical political correctness.  Voters made vulgarity OK when they selected Trump - the most vulgar buffoon elected to office in my lifetime.  Now they are offended by so called “liberal snowflakes” in pink pussyhats.  The tables have turned.  Are you offended by the 1967 hit song “What’s new Pussycat” or the early 1970’s cartoon “Josie and the Pussycats” or the 2011 animated film “Puss in Boots”?  Perhaps not, because you know these titles are not referring to a female body part, but I can assure you Trump was referring to a female body part when he said “I can grab her by the pussy”.  This was excusable to 60 million Americans, because it was only locker room talk and he’s a successful billionaire.  But a pink pussyhat somehow “crosses the line of morality".

Does the color pink offend you?  It is the color of the so-called offensive body part.  If that is the case, you should be disgusted by the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure which is bathed in pink as a symbol of support for women who have been victimized by breast cancer.  I suppose voters excuse this because these women are victims of a terrible disease, and evidently grabbing a pussy is a victim-less crime.

If you wonder why many thousands of women protested on the first day of the presidency, you might consider that they are deeply offended by the fact that our president is an indecent pig who clearly demonstrated disrespect for women and still GOT ELECTED!  Women came out in droves to say THIS IS NOT OK!  I am amazed at the ability of these Americans to rise, organize, mobilize, symbolize, vocalize, and chastise in numbers far exceeding the President's inauguration.

You may wonder if the whole event will truly make a difference, but I believe it already has.  Trump may be in denial, but his cabinet members, staff members, and fellow Republicans can see they are not very popular right now, and that’s a start.  We all must refuse to excuse any man who takes a pussy in one hand, only because he has a bundle of money in the other hand.

Tony F. with edits by Angela JMF.
2017

This Meme

A Facebook friend recently posted this meme in an effort to highlight the failures of President Obama.  This is unfortunate because this graphic is full of misinformation.  Let’s check it out:

Eight years of war – False.  Obama ended the wars by 2014.  American involvement in the Middle East is now limited to advisory positions and training.  In total, fewer than 100 American troops have died in the Middle East over the last 2 years.  In all, Obama oversaw 6 years of war and was criticized by most conservatives for ending the wars too early.

Lowest economic growth in American history – Misleading.  The lowest economic trend in American history was the Great Depression which lasted a decade. It is true Obama oversaw the flattest and longest recovery in post-war history, but most economists do not see this as a bad thing.  High economic growth exceeding 3% is considered too fast.  In this case, the Federal Reserve will typically enact policies to slow the pace and reduce the threat of a crash.  The Federal Reserve recently warned that if Donald Trump were to apply aggressive growth efforts the Fed may act against him to keep growth from reaching a dangerous pace.  Obama’s flat recovery averaging 1.5% over his term has resulted in the longest period of constant expansion and increased employment.  The Federal Reserve recently suggested computer technology and other global factors are contributing to a flatter new economy.

Record number of mass shootings – True for every President.  This number has been growing every decade throughout American history.  There is no linkage between a growing number of mass shootings through every decade of history, and who is President.

Record number of terrorist attacks in America – True for every President.  This is closely related to the mass shootings claim above, and includes many of the same data points.  Again, there is no linkage between this growing concern and who is President.  In fact, during most of Obama’s term the U.S. government was using enhanced anti-terrorist tactics enacted by the Patriot Act in 2001.  This statistic proves the Patriot Act did not work although it is still in effect.

Record number of people on food stamps – True, but only due to the recession.  Keep in mind, population is constantly growing, so any claim of “record number of people” is a function of larger population.  The true cost of welfare must be compared to GDP.  Welfare expenses have now leveled off to a 50-year average.

Record high health insurance costs – True for every President since 1970.  The rate of increase actually leveled off since Obamacare was passed.  The 50 year average increase in medical spending has was about 8% per year, but after Obamacare the rate of increase dropped down to around 4%.

Record high national debt – True for every President since 1950.  Inflation will always produce record highs.  When measured in relation to GDP, the highest debt actually occurred at the end of WWII and has not returned to that level.

Worst rioting since 1967 – False.  The list of civil unrest incidents from 1968 to 1975 exceeds the number during Obama's term.  Many riots during Obama’s term were racially motivated due to the perception of unfair treatment of African Americans by the police.  When the first black president was elected, many hoped race was no longer a factor.  This hope caused a great deal of disappointment as minorities reckoned with the idea that racism still exists.  Rioting occurred due to unmet expectations.

Highest poverty level in American history – False.  Even during the Great Recession poverty levels never reached numbers prior to 1960.

And this is what liberals call success – False.  Since the prior statements are either false (3 times), misleading (1), or true for every other modern President (4 times), these statements have little to do with the President’s performance, and nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of success.  What should Americans call success?  I will give you a few ideas:

Highest level of renewable energy production in history
Highest level of energy independence since 1970
Highest number of immigrant deportations in U.S. history
Highest number of new jobs in U.S. history
Highest percentage of health insured citizens in U.S. history
Equal marriage rights for LGBT’s
Stock market performance better than any Republican president in U.S. history (but approximately equal to Ronald Reagan)
Killing of Osama Bin Laden, and covert drone killings of 2,500 additional terrorists

This is success.  Any questions?

Tony F.
2017

Make it Happy

Upbeat Cubans having a jam.

A friend of mine recently traveled to Cuba with a few friends and business partners.  Once there, he made two observations that forced him to ask an interesting question.  The first observation was that the country had fallen to ruins under Communist rule.  Since the political climate of Cuba gave little opportunity or motivation for self improvement, each citizen simply settled for what they thought they could get.  Without the potential for a richer life, the quality of Cuban life and infrastructure slowly declined until everyone was living just slightly above poverty level.  But he also observed that Cubans seemed relatively happy.  This led him to a question – Do we really know what makes us happy?

Be that person.

In the book “Stumbling on Happiness”, Daniel Gilbert makes a strong argument that we really don’t have the ability to predict what will make us happy.  Most Americans tend to think the next “thing” should make us happy.  We tend to strive for a bigger house, a new car, a new pair of shoes, or a new item of clothing.  In the end, we find that all of these things don’t result in a whole lot of pleasure.  Even worse, we are also lousy at recognizing events that should make us happy.  We often wish for peace in times of drama, but we then perceive peaceful events as boring and create drama to combat boredom.

Often, we don’t allow ourselves to be happy because we want more of everything than we had yesterday.  Numerous studies show the upper class is only slightly happier (because they have less to worry about) but once they reach a certain threshold of financial security, strife and dissatisfaction still prevails.  The old adage holds true – money does not buy happiness – but the right amount of money may reduce stress.  The trouble is, we don’t recognize the right amount of money when we have it.

In the book “The Top 5 Regrets of the Dying”, Bronnie Ware records her findings from several years of working in palliative care, talking to hundreds of people in the last weeks of their life.  She discovers the top 5 regrets of these dying folks as follows: 1. I wish I’d had the courage to live life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.  2.  I wish I didn’t work so hard. 3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings. 4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends. 5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.  I find item 5 most interesting – sometimes we simply need to give ourselves permission to BE happy.  So, instead of making choices for things that should MAKE us happy, perhaps we can just CHOOSE happiness.

Choose happiness.

In his popular TED talk, “Paradox of Choice”, psychologist Barry Schwartz concludes we have too many choices in American life, which results in expectations that a perfect choice exists, which nearly always results in disappointment.  He summarizes his philosophy by saying, “The secret to happiness is low expectations” which evidently holds true in the Cuban example.  To take this further, I would argue that some choices are not available to all of us, but we see that other people have more choices than we have and become unhappy with the comparison.  Still, unhappiness occurs because we think better choices probably exist to MAKE us happy.

Why am I writing this?  It’s not because I believe the Cuban example is the best way to run a country.  Instead, I’m arguing Americans should enjoy our good lives and give ourselves permission to BE happy.  Be yourself, and say what you think and feel.  Work hard enough to pay the bills, and then take the time to do something you enjoy.  Don’t bother comparing your material things to the things of others because those with more and better things are probably not much happier.  Love your family and friends.  Most of all, find reasons to be happy.  I hope you take it literally when I say, “Have a happy New Year”.

Tony F.  2017

OK, SO THAT HAPPENED

Ok, so that happened.

Full disclosure - I didn’t vote for Donald Trump as more than half of the nation also did not.  But I’m not mad about it. I try to look for the silver lining - because there is no other option.  Rest assured, a flip of the electoral college is unlikely and the controversial Mr. Trump will take office.  Now that America is getting a grip on the idea of President Trump I will take a guess at what that will look like: 

WHAT LIBERALS ALREADY LOST AND CONSERVATIVES GAINED

The path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is blown up.  That said, no politician wants to deport English speaking second generation immigrants to a country the kid has never seen.  Trump promised to deport a lot of illegals, but he’s more focused on money so he will probably look at the cost.  He also wants to freeze the hiring of new Federal employees, so in the long run he will probably carve deportation down to something manageable, perhaps a lot like it already is, but he will take credit for the numbers of deportees regardless.  New immigration will decrease simply because Trump has shown an unfriendly tone toward immigrants.  Sometimes words are all it takes!

All influence on Climate Change is out the window.  End of paragraph.

The Supreme Court will be conservative.  Anthony Scalia will be replaced with a similarly conservative judge, which is a break-even.  The oldest current justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, a liberal.  The next oldest is Anthony Kennedy, 80, a centrist.  The third oldest is Stephen Breyer, 78, also liberal.  Trump could easily get a chance to replace at least one or more of them.

Trump promises to strip regulations, including EPA regulations.  This is easier said than done, but the leadership can de-fund and ignore existing regulations for 4 years.  Regulatory jobs will be lost.  This effort alone might be a boost for newer and smaller businesses, but larger businesses will be on guard for regime change and are more likely to keep regulatory protocols in place unless market conditions force cuts.  The environment will get a bit messy but not on a large scale.

Trump will cancel Obama’s executive orders, particularly those pertaining to climate change, immigration, and Obamacare.   Altogether, Obama signed 234 orders and all of them can be cancelled.

There will be budget cuts on things liberals love the most, but not on the largest and most costly social programs.  Many folks in rural Republican states are receiving entitlements right now.

Any hope of more rights for minorities or women or LGBTQ’s is stalled, and with Mike Pence at the helm it appears LGBTQ’s will take the brunt unless congress fights it.  It will take a lot of political capital to strip current rights but Pence considers this to be the work of God, and he is probably willing to push it.  Trump, however, is a business man.  He will be looking at the economy far more than social issues.  It will be Pence and other cabinet members who will steer this. 

THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT CHANGE MUCH

It appears Obamacare is over, but if you listen carefully, the root of the Affordable Care Act may remain.  Trump promises to “repeal and replace” and his solution still sounds like insurance coverage. A market savvy solution will probably be supported by mainstream Republicans in congress.  No Republican wants to be blamed for killing healthcare to 22 million voters or dependents under 26 years, many of whom are living in Republican states.  Obama will lose the brand, but a vital piece of the work will stay in place and much of the tax will stay in place too.

There is little evidence Trump wants to attack social issues unless he can make an argument that they hurt the economy or were unconstitutional.   Trump pledged at certain times to protect LGBTQ folks and also to protect women’s rights.  Remember, Trump attacked illegal immigrants because they were illegal and supposedly “not the best” but to my knowledge he never attacked minority U.S. citizens.  Additionally, the Republican establishment was working on a more inclusive agenda so they are not likely to pressure Trump into tough social agendas either.  Of course, the members of his cabinet may change all of this.

Gun legislation will not change.  Republicans promise to enforce existing rules, but there’s no incentive to do that.

Trump can’t return coal jobs to America.  That ship has sailed.  Power plants have converted to natural gas, which is clean, abundant, and cheap.  The only way Trump could honor this promise is to export coal to other countries.  That won’t work either because he promises to destroy foreign trade.

Trump can’t return steel jobs to America.  Half of all steel jobs were lost to technology and mechanization, and the other half of steel jobs were lost to extremely cheap foreign labor, not corporate taxes and regulation as Trump wants us to believe.  Tariffs won’t help, because we already charge massive tariffs on foreign steel.  It’s an empty promise.

Trump might be able to return some auto manufacturing jobs to America with the threat of huge tariffs on Mexican built cars, but he can’t do it without making a deal with auto unions, which is the real reason car manufacturing fled Michigan - not taxes.  Auto unions have been kicking auto manufacturers around for decades and auto manufacturers are sick of it.  This presents a dilemma for Trump because many of his voters were disenfranchised union workers. 

Trump can’t make Mexico pay for a wall.  He will probably build a short wall in the most troubled part of the border and get a miniscule trade credit from Mexico, but he will fall well short of the promise and then exaggerate the greatness of the work.  Promise kept, sort of.

Trump did not say he would attack Roe v. Wade, nor is it likely he could if prompted to do so.  That said, his cabinet members will invest their time on Roe v. Wade so this theory may be tested.  They will need a few years to add conservative court members before a test of Roe v. Wade can be effective.

TRUMP WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR THIS

Right now, the economy is on a continuous but slow upward trend.  The Obama years showed average growth of around 2% which is near the preferred target of 3%.  Jobs have been added at a rate of just less than 1 million per year.  If Trump did practically nothing there is a good chance this trend will continue.  Of course, after his first year in office, Trump can proudly say “I did that!” even though the economy in the President’s first year is always the result of economic policy by the prior administration.

If Trump is successful in killing trade deals the cost of goods will go up.  This will trigger false inflation and “grow the economy” even faster than anticipated.  But, increasing the cost of goods will not create jobs - it simply decreases the value of the dollar.  This is called “stagflation”.  Trump will brag about triggering fantastic growth and deny anything economists say until everyone realizes we’ve been screwed.

As a “law and order” candidate, Trump can pretend he oversaw a decline in violent crime.  He ran on the statement that crime is up, and he will claim to bring it down.  But in fact, crime is already down and will probably continue moving down mostly due to abortion rights (see “Freakonomics” by Dubner and Levitt), and an increase in surveillance.  Criminals simply cannot get very far anymore with cameras everywhere.  Trump will take credit for that.

It is very likely ISIS will be beaten down by a coalition formed under the Obama administration.  When this happens Trump and friends will claim victory.  Promise kept!  It seems possible Trump may negotiate support from Russia in exchange for a comfortable piece of Syria and Iraq.  This will bother most Americans but Trump will sell it as the “great deal” that eliminated ISIS.

THINGS WE ALL LOST

Any accomplishment Obama made in narrowing the deficit will be reversed.  Trump will lower taxes and add expenses, thus triggering massive deficit spending.  Nearly every economist predicts debt will rise by at least half $Trillion per year as a result of Trump policy.

Trump’s venomous dialogue has bred mutual disrespect all over America.  We are less UNITED under Trump than we have ever been in my lifetime.  This is likely to get worse over the next four years unless Trump tempers his language, and even corrects the language of others, but that is unlikely.  His advisors may push him to offer assurances and they will probably apologize on his behalf.  It’s wait and see on this.

So, that’s the silver lining.  Unfortunately it is very tarnished and I would love to be wrong.  After 4 years, Trump will have a hard time justifying his failure to create manufacturing jobs; he will need to defend the swelling debt, and he will need to justify rising racial tension.  Disadvantaged Americans will be mad as hell that their rights were stripped, working class whites will not see much change, the Supreme Court will be bolstered with new conservatives, Obamacare will be Trumpcare, and yet the rich will get even richer. This paves the way for a well spoken Democrat to swoop in and claim the office, because America Won't Be So Great Again.  The only way Trump can win a second term is if Democrats fail to nominate a like-able candidate AND Trump manages to convince his voters he can still fix things with added time.  It seems pretty unlikely that both of these things will happen so I predict Trump will be a one term president.  

That said, Trump has surprised the entire nation by winning the Presidency against all odds in the first place.  Perhaps he can surprise us with what he accomplishes.  I sincerely hope he does some good.

Tony F.

2016

Should we hate Obamacare?

In July of 2014 a Kaiser Foundation poll concluded that over 53% of Americans do not support Obamacare.  This negative opinion has reached an all-time high since the law was passed in 2010.  In fact, Obamacare has never had a majority of public support.  To date, only a little more than 1/3 of Americans have said they support it while approximately 1/2 have been against it.  The rest say they don’t understand it.  This is an interesting statistic since most of us are not affected by Obamacare.  There are only two key groups of people who are affected by it - the uninsured, and the wealthier self-sustained.  If you are one of these, you make up about 20% of the population. 

The most negative impact is felt by wealthier self-sustained Americans who are hit especially hard by tax increases.  With Obamacare, capital gains tax was dialed up from 15% to a total of 23.8%.  Obamacare also contains numerous other tax increases for persons earning over $200,000 per year.  Additionally, many of the self-sustained are forced to pay more for health insurance due to higher standards of coverage.  It’s easy to understand why the law is so terribly disliked by top wage earners.  This doesn’t come close to explaining the polls, though, because this group only accounts for about 6 percent of households.

Another purported negative is the sudden cancellation of millions of private insurance policies.  I say purported, because Forbes Magazine (a recognized conservative publication) states that most private insurance would have been cancelled anyway if Obamacare were not passed.  According to Forbes, private insurance has always been temporary at best.  Insurance companies keep these policies short so they can re-assess their risk every few years.   Forbes reports only 17% of all privatepolicies were written to last more than 2 years.  So, the claim that policies are cancelled due to Obamacare is nothing more than fallacy.

The obvious positive impact is felt by the previously uninsured – those who either had pre-existing conditions, or who were not adequately employed to afford health insurance.  This population accounts for about 14 percent of households.  Obamacare helped nearly 9 percent of these households, but still failed to reach nearly 5 percent of households due to varying rates of state participation.  But, in addition to insuring additional families, the Congressional Budget Office also predicts a long term benefit to the national debt.  By reducing long term medical costs, the CBO has now reduced their long term projection of increased national debt over the next 30 years.  Strangely, we don’t hear about this benefit from any conservative pundit despite their apparent concern over the national debt.

What about the economy?  Conservative pundits banter about the impacts Obamacare puts on the economy, citing wage cuts, job losses, slower economic recovery, and increased medical costs.  Unfortunately for them Forbes Magazine has hotly refuted all of these claims.  In fact, Forbes cites the opposite – the economy continues to grow, overall employment continues to increase, and medical costs continue to stay on par despite the so-called “burdens” of Obamacare.

We have heard over the years how Obamacare is a disaster but it appears this is becoming more and more difficult to prove.   Consequently, pundits have moved their focus away from the effects of Obamacare, and instead focus on how the bill was passed without transparency, thus relying on the “stupidity of the American voter”.  The facts are in, and in a recent follow up poll Kaiser asked if voters prefer to repeal Obamacare or modify it.  Interestingly, over 60% said we should keep and modify it.  Only about 35% said we should repeal it.  

Afterall, if Obamacare provides insurance to millions of disadvantaged and uninsurable families, protects doctors and hospitals from unpaid bills, improves the long term national debt, and causes no ill effect on the economy - what do we hate about that?  Maybe voters are not so stupid after all!

Tony F.

2014

The 12th Man - A Superbowl Diary

On the way to NYC

We departed Denver early Saturday morning wearing our Bronco orange and entering an airplane 80% full of Bronco fans bound for New York.  There were 2 Seahawk fans on the plane.  We heckled them jokingly and then wished them a good game.  The plane was abuzz with subdued excitement.

Five hours later, we were dropped, luggage and all, at the corner of 39^th and 6^th Street, just one block off Broadway, also known as Superbowl Avenue.  Our hotel was on 40^th, so we needed to roll our luggage uptown.  As we made our way to Superbowl Avenue, a NYC cop said, “You don’t want to go that way.  It’s a madhouse, and full of Seahawks!”  This was the first moment I suspected we may have a problem.  We took 6^th Street and checked in.

Lady Liberty salutes the orange sky

We spent several evening hours on foot, riding subways and ferries to catch the sights.  New York is a spectacular city well worth exploring.  Later that evening we popped into a classic Irish pub and enjoyed a few drinks amidst shouts of SEA! HAWKS!  There was no doubt that we Bronco fans were in the minority.  One buzzed Seahawk said, as if stating a mere fact, “It’s going to be a slaughter.  The Broncos have no idea what they are up against.”  I responded, “I guess we will see.”  I stood there recalling the Broncos Superbowl history.  Before ever winning a Superbowl, the Broncos had been beaten 4 times, twice by more than 30 points, including a brow beating by Joe Montana’s 49ers 55 to 10 – the worst point spread in bowl history.  There’s something about the pressure of the game that has made the Broncos implode.       I remained hopeful.

Sunday morning, we dressed in orange and continued taking in more of the city.  We walked until our feet hurt, occasionally throwing a high five to a fellow Bronco fan yelling “Go Broncos!”  Throughout the day, we tried to ignore entire crowds of fans yelling SEA! HAWKS!

As we boarded the subways and trains toward Metlife Stadium, we were surrounded by more and more Seahawk fans.  The Bronco fans were older, calmer, and more reflective.  The Seahawk fans were younger, louder, rambunctious, and ready for their first big win.  Our party of orange agreed that we were outnumbered at least 3 to 1.  It took two and a half difficult hours to get to Metlife, all the time in large crowds screaming SEA! HAWKS!  The 12^th Man was all around us.  Bronco fans responded with relatively weak renditions of “Lets Go Broncos”.

Once seated in the stadium, we were relieved to see that the orange colors were far brighter than the black and blue, so the Broncos appeared to be represented with a nice sprinkling of orange throughout the stadium.  It became clear, however, that the orange was just a sprinkle.  The 12^th man had most of the other seats.  Stadium announcers told us to make some noise for the Broncos, and we yelled with our entire mite.  Then stadium announcers told fans to make some noise for the Seahawks.  The response was staggering.  KOA’s Dave Logan later commented that this moment sounded like the comparison between the roar of a 12 year old boy next to that of a fully grown man.

In the first offensive play of the game, the Broncos gave away a safety in the end zone just in front of us.  The team could not hear Manning’s cadence.  The 12^th man has scored.  The Broncos never recovered.  The game plan was flawed, and the team unraveled.  The rest is history.  Our greatest memories of the entire game were the national anthem and the half time show.  Incredible.

I don’t know how so many Seahawk fans managed to get so many tickets and travel so far to support their team, but they did.  The 12^th man is real, and he was able hoist a Lombardi Trophy for the first time in franchise history.  I sincerely doubt the game was fixed, but I do wonder how Seattle fans were able to outnumber Denver fans so soundly at the game.  We were told by some Superbowl veterans that they had not seen a louder, more lopsided fan base at a Superbowl.  It was almost as if the Seahawks were playing at home.  They were energetic, sharp, hard hitting, and aggressive.  The fans brought their winning energy to New York, and the team answered with a bang.  By comparison, only a few Bronco fans showed up, and much of the team stayed home too.

It took 3 hours to get back to our hotel, including 2 punishing and frightening hours of standing in a sea of humanity waiting for the trains.  The transportation system for this game was terribly inadequate and potentially dangerous.  Half of the fans were ordered not to leave the stadium until the lot began to clear.  Seahawk fans treated us with respect and dignity, but didn't spare us their shouts of SEA! HAWKS! all the way back to the city. 

We attempted to fly out early Monday morning, but not before spending an excruciating 3 hours waiting on the tarmac due to heavy snow.  Eight hours later, we arrived at our door.  I’m still trying to shake off the menace of the 12^th man.  He is real, and he has won.  I salute the coaches, players, and fans of Seattle because they've all earned it.  Despite all of our misery, old New York was absolutely worth the trip.

Tony F.

2014  

It's As If....

Terence Jeffrey

In a September 2012 article, CNS News editor TerenceJeffrey reported voter turnout in recent presidential elections has exceeded the number of full time workers in the U.S.  That is to say, non-working voters ”outnumbered” workers.  He then described several other conditions that apparently affect presidential elections, such as the fact that more women are working than ever before, and food stamp benefits are much higher than in 1968.  Toward the end of his article, he attacked the number of employed Americans who work but do not pay taxes due to tax credits.  He concluded his article with the punch line, “The problem is that government has divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who take and take.”

In Jeffrey’s theoretical second camp, those who “take and take”, he implicated non workers, part time workers, workers who qualify for food stamps, women, and workers who qualify for tax credits.  These descriptions encompass every single one of us, including Jeffrey himself.

Although Jeffrey’s factual data cannot be disputed, his implications and conclusions are despicable.  In order to make these destructive conclusions, he had to leave out huge amounts of contrary data: 

He did NOT tell us that in 16 presidential elections since 1952, 13 were decided by non-full time workers, while only 3 elections were controlled by full time workers.  The problem he describes is actually the historic norm.

He did NOT tell us that the opposite is true in EVERY off year election due to low voter turnout.   Full time workers theoretically control the outcome of ALL off-year elections.

He did NOT report that overall employment per capita has been higher in the last 30 years than ever before in U.S. history, with the exception of the war effort during WWII.

He also did NOT report that the recent increase of part time time workers is due to the lack of job openings after 2008, not due to people who are unwilling to work.

He also did NOT report that welfare benefits expanded significantly during the 1970’s and are remaining fairly consistent with the 40 year average relative to GDP.  There are more people on food stamps today, but each recipient is getting a smaller share.

He did NOT report that government expenditures have been shrinking over the course of the Obama presidency, down by 3.3% of GDP since Bush’s 2009 budget. 

And lastly, he did NOT report that Reagan tax reforms required poverty level workers to pay taxes while the wealthy enjoyed major tax cuts.  Reagan cut top tax rates to the lowest levels in 50 years, which continues to cause growing deficits.

It’s as if Jeffrey hen-pecked his data to create an extremely right-biased article.  Funny thing, since CNS News claims to eliminate bias.  Conservatives repeatedly accuse liberals of lying, while creating loads of misinformation like the above.  Jeffrey’s friends in the media have taken his article and run with it: Hannity, Limbaugh, and other AM radio hosts use this misinformation to rant about how we live in a taker’s welfare state, how the takers control elections, and how we had better prepare for the worst by stocking up on guns and ammo.  It’s as if conservatives are hoping for a war.  If there is “class warfare” in this country, it's as if it is being propagated by conservatives.

The bottom line is this:  The percentage of “providers” has risen in the last few decades, reaching its highest level in 1998 and coming down only a few percentage points in recent years due to economic change and job competition.  The percentage of “takers” is rising only among the elderly.  Overall spending on “entitlements” is up in recent years due to the increasing population of retired citizens, but Jeffrey doesn't mention this.  He tries to attribute the problem to American laziness, as if that were true.  

The wealthiest Americans are paying lower tax percentages than in the years from 1932 to 1986, yet they are complaining that poverty level wage earners are not paying enough.  It's as if the wealthy are the most "entitled".  To correct Jeffrey’s closing line, Conservatives have divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who allegedly take and take.  As if the latter actually existed.

Tony F.   2013