(Press Release courtesy of The Amerind Foundation)
What: Walls, Windows and Doors, an exhibit by professional photographer Joe Kozlowski
Where: The Amerind Museum (www.amerind.org)
When: May 1-December 31, 2012
Exhibit description: Professional photographer Joe Kozlowski’s stunning photography examines the Walls, Windows and Doors of the American Southwest’s ancient ruins and historic structures. The photographer captures the artistry of ancient architectural elements, likening them to abstract impressionist paintings. For Kozlowski, the subject matter is a metaphor for human interaction: walls which isolate us, windows that provide us with insights into each other, and doors that help us connect. The changing nature of these structures from ancient Native American towns to recent Spanish Colonial churches poses questions for us. How have the functions of walls, windows and doors changed over time and between the cultures that created them?
About the Photographer: Joe Kozlowski is the son of a portrait/landscape artist and an elementary school teacher. He has been involved with photography as an amateur, semi-professional and professional since he was a child. With a background in cultural anthropology, his photos reveal the artistry in human structures and objects. Kozlowski’s photography is available in book form through Blurb.com. They are also on display on-line at Fine Art America.
About the attached image: A signature piece of the exhibit, this photograph by Joe Kozlowski shows the doors of Pueblo Bonito, a ruin in New Mexico that was first built over one thousand years ago.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Friday, January 06, 2012
Stage III Terminal Case of Life
The way I see it, life is divided into four stages. In the first stage, when we're very young, we are taken with how amazing it everything is. We constantly discover and explore new things and there is a joy of living that is unmatched by anything.
As we grow a little older, we enter a second stage. In that stage of life, we hold onto the illusion that we have the means to control the events of our life and the people who inhabit our corner of the world. The down side of this is that, as we focus on all of our efforts to control outcomes, we miss out on many of the small and beautiful things that are right in front of us. They invented the phrase, "stop and smell the roses", for just this reason. Sadly, the control we imagine we have is an illusion and, even when our plans come together the way we thought we wanted them to, our gains almost always fall far short of what we imagined they would be. Our lives are filled with frustration and conflicting feelings.
In the third stage of life, we begin to recognize that controlling the people and events in our lives are an illusion and that we simply don't have the power to do that. If we have power at all, it is the ability to control how we react to the events and people we encounter in our lives. This is where I find myself. Stage III terminal case of life.
In recognizing that we can only control how we react, we also start to realize that it is important to store up as many wonderful memories as we can for that final Stage IV, when all that's left to us is to savor the memories we made as they fade, one by one. A time when we recall the smell of a rose or the wonderful shape of an orchid and we smile inwardly for having stopped to experience them.
In the end, we regret most the things we didn't do.
As we grow a little older, we enter a second stage. In that stage of life, we hold onto the illusion that we have the means to control the events of our life and the people who inhabit our corner of the world. The down side of this is that, as we focus on all of our efforts to control outcomes, we miss out on many of the small and beautiful things that are right in front of us. They invented the phrase, "stop and smell the roses", for just this reason. Sadly, the control we imagine we have is an illusion and, even when our plans come together the way we thought we wanted them to, our gains almost always fall far short of what we imagined they would be. Our lives are filled with frustration and conflicting feelings.
In the third stage of life, we begin to recognize that controlling the people and events in our lives are an illusion and that we simply don't have the power to do that. If we have power at all, it is the ability to control how we react to the events and people we encounter in our lives. This is where I find myself. Stage III terminal case of life.
In recognizing that we can only control how we react, we also start to realize that it is important to store up as many wonderful memories as we can for that final Stage IV, when all that's left to us is to savor the memories we made as they fade, one by one. A time when we recall the smell of a rose or the wonderful shape of an orchid and we smile inwardly for having stopped to experience them.
In the end, we regret most the things we didn't do.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Three Observations Worth Pondering
Beloved children’s author Lemony Snicket has visited the Occupy Wall Street protest and wrote up a list of observations that will hopefully chill those within the executive suites looking down upon Zuccotti Park. Here are three of those observations:
From Wonkette.
- Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
- There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
- Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
From Wonkette.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Best book review ... ever.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves Orcs.”
Read more on The Bonddad Blog.
Read more on The Bonddad Blog.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Occupy Wall Street?
People ask, “What is it about.” Most simply put, it’s about inequity.
Let me outline a thought. The world has always had an extremely wealthy class. It has also always had the poor. Since The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) the thing that has changed has been the rise of the middle class. My thought is this: The middle class acts as a buffer between wealth and power on one hand and the peasants with torches and pitch forks on the other hand. The middle class offers hope to the poor in terms of the possibility of upward mobility; it also offers a consumer base that supports the very wealthy. A strong middle class is essential to both peace and prosperity.
In recent history, since the market crash in 2008, those hurt most have been the middle class. The poor were suffering to begin with and when you have nothing to begin with how much can you possibly lose? The wealthy haven’t suffered; virtually 100% of the income growth over the last 20 years has gone to the top 10% of our population … leaving nothing for the other 90%. Those most hurt have been the middle class. Pensions have been cut. Retirement “nest eggs” embodied in home ownership and retirement mutual funds have lost their value. The American Dream, an ideal of the middle class, has been destroyed.
Extraneous thought: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France, from The Red Lily, 1894)
Suddenly, the American middle class is confronted by the prospect of sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread - issues with which the poor have had to contend from time immemorial and the very rich have never had to consider.
This inequity coupled with the threat of the withdrawal of community support (like modifications to Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, the threat of higher taxes for the middle class and lower taxes for “job creators” who aren’t creating any jobs) is, I believe, the prime motivator for the OWS movement. It is the expression of concern for the overall direction which is leading to greater inequity at the continued expense of the middle class.
Let me outline a thought. The world has always had an extremely wealthy class. It has also always had the poor. Since The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) the thing that has changed has been the rise of the middle class. My thought is this: The middle class acts as a buffer between wealth and power on one hand and the peasants with torches and pitch forks on the other hand. The middle class offers hope to the poor in terms of the possibility of upward mobility; it also offers a consumer base that supports the very wealthy. A strong middle class is essential to both peace and prosperity.
In recent history, since the market crash in 2008, those hurt most have been the middle class. The poor were suffering to begin with and when you have nothing to begin with how much can you possibly lose? The wealthy haven’t suffered; virtually 100% of the income growth over the last 20 years has gone to the top 10% of our population … leaving nothing for the other 90%. Those most hurt have been the middle class. Pensions have been cut. Retirement “nest eggs” embodied in home ownership and retirement mutual funds have lost their value. The American Dream, an ideal of the middle class, has been destroyed.
Extraneous thought: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France, from The Red Lily, 1894)
Suddenly, the American middle class is confronted by the prospect of sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread - issues with which the poor have had to contend from time immemorial and the very rich have never had to consider.
This inequity coupled with the threat of the withdrawal of community support (like modifications to Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, the threat of higher taxes for the middle class and lower taxes for “job creators” who aren’t creating any jobs) is, I believe, the prime motivator for the OWS movement. It is the expression of concern for the overall direction which is leading to greater inequity at the continued expense of the middle class.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Sunday, September 04, 2011
The List
Let's make lists of names of people who disagree with us ... just like tyrants and dictators throughout history have done ... and let's call it "The Christian National Registry of Atheists."
(or view on YouTube)
Then we can make lists of Muslims. And when we've finished that, we can make lists of the names of Jews ... and trade union members ... and other "enemies of the state". Because lists are how we keep track of things ... and people.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
~ Sinclair Lewis (attributed)
(or view on YouTube)
Then we can make lists of Muslims. And when we've finished that, we can make lists of the names of Jews ... and trade union members ... and other "enemies of the state". Because lists are how we keep track of things ... and people.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
~ Sinclair Lewis (attributed)
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
"It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant."
Read the rest on TruthOut.org.
When I was in college in the 1960s I took a couple Political Science courses dealing with American political extremism. The link above is to one of the best articles I've read on the subject since then. If you're at all interested in what's happening in American politics today, I believe this is a MUST READ article and I recommend it very highly.
Read the rest on TruthOut.org.
When I was in college in the 1960s I took a couple Political Science courses dealing with American political extremism. The link above is to one of the best articles I've read on the subject since then. If you're at all interested in what's happening in American politics today, I believe this is a MUST READ article and I recommend it very highly.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
The Case for Wasteful (Government) Spending
Government waste is like the weather. Everyone talks about it but no one really does anything about it. I suspect that no one does anything about it because what constitutes wasteful government spending is such a subjective thing. Just as the old saying goes, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, so it is that one man’s wasteful spending is another man’s necessary investment. As with so many things, the definition depends on your point of view.
This is not to say that government spending couldn’t be done more effectively or efficiently or that it isn’t possible to get more bang for the buck. Without doubt, our government could certainly get more bang for the buck in many cases.
But let’s examine a concrete instance. Let’s take Medicare Part D as a starting point. It was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006. (I’ll leave it to you, the reader, to figure out who controlled Congress in 2003.)
By the design of the program, the federal government, by law, is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as other federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the Veterans Administration (VA) pays $520.
From the point of view of the tax payer, the difference between what the drug companies are charging the government Medicare program and what they charge the VA could easily be defined as wasteful spending. However, from the point of view of the drug companies who lobbied for the provision and the congressional legislators who supported the measure, it’s extremely important to protect the profitability of the drug companies. So, whether or not Medicare spending $265 more than the VA for the same medication is wasteful is a function of which side your on … the tax payers’ side or on the side of corporations.
That spending difference was enacted into law and, because it is the law passed by Congress, no one in the administration of Medicare can do anything about it without breaking the law. However, those in the administration of the Medicare program certainly get the blame for being inefficient and ineffective and wasteful.
The $4 billion worth of medical-related fraud the feds recaptured in 2010 is presumably a fraction of the taxpayer-subsidized scams that the pharma and health care providers got away with. The Top Ten Federal False Claims Act settlements in 2010 involved health care, with pharmaceutical company fraud accounting for eight.
Was the $4 billion a waste of taxpayer’s money? Most people would agree that it was. However, the obvious solution to some is to cut the Medicare program with the consequence that fewer government employees are available to investigate false claims … because it’s paying government employees that’s the wasteful spending?
But there’s a even bigger point. When talking about wasteful spending people seem to argue from the point of view that what they consider wasteful spending is basically putting money into a rocket ship and blasting it off into outer space. The fact of the matter is that even “wasteful” spending is money that, through the government purchases of goods and services, gets circulated throughout the economy. The money that isn’t captured as corporate profits (think $600 toilet seats) goes to pay people to manufacture those products or perform those services.
All systems have waste. Waste cannot be eliminated. At best, it can be controlled.
When we talk about wasteful spending in government, it might be a good idea to ask “compared to what?” For example, the internal combustion engine that powers your car has an efficiency rating on the order of 18% to 20%. That means that between 18% and 20% of the energy released from .the burning of fuel in the engine is used to propel the car down the road. The remaining 80% of the energy is released as heat and is dissipated into the atmosphere, accomplishing nothing. By contrast, Medicare a government program, considered by some to be very inefficient, provides a decent standard of health care for approximately 45 million Americans with only a 3% administrative cost (that could be analogous to the useless heat from your car engine) while 97% of its funds go to directly to individual health care (excluding fraud as mentioned above, of course).
But that’s not comparing apples to apples. So lets compare the Medicare 3% administrative cost to the 15% to 20% administrative cost associated with private health care providers. Incidentally, you can add corporate wasteful spending on top of that (interminable staff meetings that accomplish nothing, for example, because someone has to pay all those employees who attend for their time).
The take away from all of this is that government waste is subjective. It is a favorite hobby horse ridden by those who oppose anything that resembles a government program … while they neglect to mention that they were the ones who created the waste.
This is not to say that government spending couldn’t be done more effectively or efficiently or that it isn’t possible to get more bang for the buck. Without doubt, our government could certainly get more bang for the buck in many cases.
But let’s examine a concrete instance. Let’s take Medicare Part D as a starting point. It was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006. (I’ll leave it to you, the reader, to figure out who controlled Congress in 2003.)
By the design of the program, the federal government, by law, is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as other federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the Veterans Administration (VA) pays $520.
From the point of view of the tax payer, the difference between what the drug companies are charging the government Medicare program and what they charge the VA could easily be defined as wasteful spending. However, from the point of view of the drug companies who lobbied for the provision and the congressional legislators who supported the measure, it’s extremely important to protect the profitability of the drug companies. So, whether or not Medicare spending $265 more than the VA for the same medication is wasteful is a function of which side your on … the tax payers’ side or on the side of corporations.
That spending difference was enacted into law and, because it is the law passed by Congress, no one in the administration of Medicare can do anything about it without breaking the law. However, those in the administration of the Medicare program certainly get the blame for being inefficient and ineffective and wasteful.
The $4 billion worth of medical-related fraud the feds recaptured in 2010 is presumably a fraction of the taxpayer-subsidized scams that the pharma and health care providers got away with. The Top Ten Federal False Claims Act settlements in 2010 involved health care, with pharmaceutical company fraud accounting for eight.
Was the $4 billion a waste of taxpayer’s money? Most people would agree that it was. However, the obvious solution to some is to cut the Medicare program with the consequence that fewer government employees are available to investigate false claims … because it’s paying government employees that’s the wasteful spending?
But there’s a even bigger point. When talking about wasteful spending people seem to argue from the point of view that what they consider wasteful spending is basically putting money into a rocket ship and blasting it off into outer space. The fact of the matter is that even “wasteful” spending is money that, through the government purchases of goods and services, gets circulated throughout the economy. The money that isn’t captured as corporate profits (think $600 toilet seats) goes to pay people to manufacture those products or perform those services.
All systems have waste. Waste cannot be eliminated. At best, it can be controlled.
When we talk about wasteful spending in government, it might be a good idea to ask “compared to what?” For example, the internal combustion engine that powers your car has an efficiency rating on the order of 18% to 20%. That means that between 18% and 20% of the energy released from .the burning of fuel in the engine is used to propel the car down the road. The remaining 80% of the energy is released as heat and is dissipated into the atmosphere, accomplishing nothing. By contrast, Medicare a government program, considered by some to be very inefficient, provides a decent standard of health care for approximately 45 million Americans with only a 3% administrative cost (that could be analogous to the useless heat from your car engine) while 97% of its funds go to directly to individual health care (excluding fraud as mentioned above, of course).
But that’s not comparing apples to apples. So lets compare the Medicare 3% administrative cost to the 15% to 20% administrative cost associated with private health care providers. Incidentally, you can add corporate wasteful spending on top of that (interminable staff meetings that accomplish nothing, for example, because someone has to pay all those employees who attend for their time).
The take away from all of this is that government waste is subjective. It is a favorite hobby horse ridden by those who oppose anything that resembles a government program … while they neglect to mention that they were the ones who created the waste.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The Modern Tea Party: An Error of Historical Analogy
Over the last several years I have often marveled at the lack of knowledge and understanding of history that is afoot among self proclaimed patriots dressed in 18th Century costumes claiming to be the rightful heirs to the Founding Fathers of this country.
The original Tea Party was held in Boston Harbor in protest of a tax on tea imported from England. The battle cry was “No Taxation Without Representation”. Parliament in Great Britain unilaterally passed the tax to be levied on colonists living in the American colonies in order to mitigate the costs of a British army sent to America to defend the colonies from the French during the French and Indian War. The British colonists in America resented the tax on the grounds that it was imposed on them while they had no elected representatives in Parliament. They were simply not allowed to vote.
In it’s current incarnation, the Tea Party has currently had all the representation they voted for. “No Taxation Without Representation” does not apply.
As for being the legitimate heirs to the Founding Fathers, they forget that it was the Founding Fathers who drew up a Constitution that established a relatively strong Federal government while reserving some rights for the states (and through the Bill of Rights; the first ten amendments to that Constitution) protected citizens from the power of the central government as well as from the powers of the various states.
In my opinion, the modern Tea Party has little in common with the original Tea Party nor do they have any understanding of what the Founding Fathers intended. However, I do believe that there is a more accurate historical analogy that could be applied.
The current Tea Party is opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. John Wilkes Booth was also opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. The Tea Party of today are strong advocates of states rights, the primary motivation of the Confederacy during the American civil war. John Wilkes Booth, as a strong southern sympathizer, also believed that states rights were more important than a central government. The modern Tea Party believes secession is a valid option for a state within the Union. John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion. There is ample evidence that today’s Tea Party are, at the very least, latent racists. In his strong support of slavery of black people in the south, John Wilkes Booth was a blatant racist. Today’s Tea Party believe it is appropriate to resort to Second Amendment remedies if they don’t get their way in legislation. Again, John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion and took his case to the logical conclusion.
Making the case that today’s Tea Party is somehow related to the original Boston Tea Party patriots and the Founding Fathers is a stretch and requires too many qualifiers. Making the case that the modern Tea Party is more analogous to John Wilkes Booth and his band of conspirators that assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the end of the American Civil War requires far less in terms of intellectual gymnastics.
The original Tea Party was held in Boston Harbor in protest of a tax on tea imported from England. The battle cry was “No Taxation Without Representation”. Parliament in Great Britain unilaterally passed the tax to be levied on colonists living in the American colonies in order to mitigate the costs of a British army sent to America to defend the colonies from the French during the French and Indian War. The British colonists in America resented the tax on the grounds that it was imposed on them while they had no elected representatives in Parliament. They were simply not allowed to vote.
In it’s current incarnation, the Tea Party has currently had all the representation they voted for. “No Taxation Without Representation” does not apply.
As for being the legitimate heirs to the Founding Fathers, they forget that it was the Founding Fathers who drew up a Constitution that established a relatively strong Federal government while reserving some rights for the states (and through the Bill of Rights; the first ten amendments to that Constitution) protected citizens from the power of the central government as well as from the powers of the various states.
In my opinion, the modern Tea Party has little in common with the original Tea Party nor do they have any understanding of what the Founding Fathers intended. However, I do believe that there is a more accurate historical analogy that could be applied.
The current Tea Party is opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. John Wilkes Booth was also opposed to the duly elected government of the United States. The Tea Party of today are strong advocates of states rights, the primary motivation of the Confederacy during the American civil war. John Wilkes Booth, as a strong southern sympathizer, also believed that states rights were more important than a central government. The modern Tea Party believes secession is a valid option for a state within the Union. John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion. There is ample evidence that today’s Tea Party are, at the very least, latent racists. In his strong support of slavery of black people in the south, John Wilkes Booth was a blatant racist. Today’s Tea Party believe it is appropriate to resort to Second Amendment remedies if they don’t get their way in legislation. Again, John Wilkes Booth shared that opinion and took his case to the logical conclusion.
Making the case that today’s Tea Party is somehow related to the original Boston Tea Party patriots and the Founding Fathers is a stretch and requires too many qualifiers. Making the case that the modern Tea Party is more analogous to John Wilkes Booth and his band of conspirators that assassinated Abraham Lincoln at the end of the American Civil War requires far less in terms of intellectual gymnastics.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
A Basic Math Lesson
"The GDP equation has four variables (long-time readers, please be kind. I'm talking to Washington here and they are stupid): C (consumer spending) + I (gross private investment) + X (net exports) + G (government spending). Right now, the consumer is OK but not great, investment is fair, but not great and the US is a net importer, so that subtracts from growth. That leaves government spending."
My comment: An economy is value (money) in motion. If the private industry is not spending (it's deleveraging or paying down debt), consumer spending is off (joblessness tends to do that) and we're a net importer (see the trade deficit), what do you suppose will happen to the economy if government spending is put on an austerity basis with draconian cuts in spending?
Cutting government spending slows the movement of value. Government spending (even wasteful spending) is not putting money in a rocket ship and blasting it into outer space. Government spending contributes to moving value (money) within the economy.
If you're sorta liberal, if you're a rational conservative, if your opinions are formed by facts, then read the article. If you're a Tea Potty supporter, don't bother. We already know that facts don't matter to you and that anything longer than a bumper sticker is too long for your ADD to navigate.
My comment: An economy is value (money) in motion. If the private industry is not spending (it's deleveraging or paying down debt), consumer spending is off (joblessness tends to do that) and we're a net importer (see the trade deficit), what do you suppose will happen to the economy if government spending is put on an austerity basis with draconian cuts in spending?
Cutting government spending slows the movement of value. Government spending (even wasteful spending) is not putting money in a rocket ship and blasting it into outer space. Government spending contributes to moving value (money) within the economy.
If you're sorta liberal, if you're a rational conservative, if your opinions are formed by facts, then read the article. If you're a Tea Potty supporter, don't bother. We already know that facts don't matter to you and that anything longer than a bumper sticker is too long for your ADD to navigate.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Deficits, Debts and Taxes
The deficit, which has everyone freaked out, is running about 10% of GDP. The people who are freaking out seem to forget that in 1942, government spending created a deficit on the order of 30% of GDP in the ramp up for our full and active participation in WWII. (The Debt in 1942 was about 120% of GDP while current Debt is about 110%.) In 1943, government spending was not significantly lower (as a percentage of GDP) than in 1942.
People like to say that WWII got us out of the Depression, and it did ... but it wasn't Hitlers spending that did the trick ... it was our government spending that fired up our ship yards; it was our government spending that converted The American Seating Company in Grand Rapids, MI from making folding chairs and cast iron theater seat frames to making B-17 bombers. Our government spending paid (through military orders) for companies to hire hundreds of thousands of people - nay! millions of people - who in turn bought groceries, shoes and clothing from local merchants causing them to hire more clerical help, causing the merchants to place more orders with their suppliers which caused their suppliers to hire more workers to produce more goods ... because there was demand. I wonder how a Balanced Budget Amendment would have worked out for us if it had been passed in 1941. How's your German? Japanese?
By 1946, at the end of the war, the deficit that had been running at 25-30% of GDP reversed and became a surplus - because government spending at previous levels was no longer necessary and GDP had increased astronomically. We became a manufacturing powerhouse and an export giant in a world where all of our competitors had been devestated. The deficit had moved to surplus in the space of less than a year. Eisenhower used that surplus to initiate the Interstate Highway System in the early 1950s. He used to people's money to do something for the common good, something that benefited individuals and corporations and still does to this day. (Incidentally, one of the specifications of the Interstate Highway System was that it could double as landing space for military aircraft in the event the threat from the USSR came home to visit us. Ever wonder why those Interstate lanes are separated from each other as much as they are throughout the country?)
I find it interesting to hear so many so-called Conservatives long for those simpler, idyllic days of the 1950s and 1960s when there was full employment and dad made enough money from his job that he could buy an affordable house while mom stayed home and took care of their 2.3 kids. They long for those wonderful days when inflation was less than 3% and there was a job for anyone that wanted one.
I find myself asking, why are they so reluctant to support a tax structure that made those days possible?
People like to say that WWII got us out of the Depression, and it did ... but it wasn't Hitlers spending that did the trick ... it was our government spending that fired up our ship yards; it was our government spending that converted The American Seating Company in Grand Rapids, MI from making folding chairs and cast iron theater seat frames to making B-17 bombers. Our government spending paid (through military orders) for companies to hire hundreds of thousands of people - nay! millions of people - who in turn bought groceries, shoes and clothing from local merchants causing them to hire more clerical help, causing the merchants to place more orders with their suppliers which caused their suppliers to hire more workers to produce more goods ... because there was demand. I wonder how a Balanced Budget Amendment would have worked out for us if it had been passed in 1941. How's your German? Japanese?
By 1946, at the end of the war, the deficit that had been running at 25-30% of GDP reversed and became a surplus - because government spending at previous levels was no longer necessary and GDP had increased astronomically. We became a manufacturing powerhouse and an export giant in a world where all of our competitors had been devestated. The deficit had moved to surplus in the space of less than a year. Eisenhower used that surplus to initiate the Interstate Highway System in the early 1950s. He used to people's money to do something for the common good, something that benefited individuals and corporations and still does to this day. (Incidentally, one of the specifications of the Interstate Highway System was that it could double as landing space for military aircraft in the event the threat from the USSR came home to visit us. Ever wonder why those Interstate lanes are separated from each other as much as they are throughout the country?)
I find it interesting to hear so many so-called Conservatives long for those simpler, idyllic days of the 1950s and 1960s when there was full employment and dad made enough money from his job that he could buy an affordable house while mom stayed home and took care of their 2.3 kids. They long for those wonderful days when inflation was less than 3% and there was a job for anyone that wanted one.
I find myself asking, why are they so reluctant to support a tax structure that made those days possible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)