Sarah Palin's Chances in 2012

Everyone is asking what Sarah Palin's latest action will do to her chances in 2012. So what does quitting her job do for her chances?

It ends them. Quitting as Majority Leader after a long Senate career is far different than leaving your post as Governor in your first term. She claims she wants to lead "social conservatives" although given her lack of cohearance on the gay marriage and abortion issues, she may be alluding to the kind of "cultural conservativism" that Senator Byrd practiced when he was the leader of the KKK in Virginia. I had not heard that the KKK was looking for a nationwide Imperial Witch, but given the people she used to attract to rallies, I can see her filling that role.

Faith and the Materialistic Soul

A couple of issues have had me think about the nature and immortality of the soul of late. Followers of this blog or my writings know that I have already said a bit about these topics, but it seems that there is more to be said.

The debate about Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) and a few family miscarriages have me thinking a bit more about when life begins. The discoveries of neuroscientists are having me rethink how the soul occurs in daily life. The discovery of a tumor (almost certainly benign) in my right adrenal gland has me thinking more about life after death.

In my debates at America Magazine about ESCR, people often talk about how ESCR kills a human being. Can common ground be found in with this position, or with the similarly unsavory position that ESCR losses are necessary for the greater good? I say no on both counts. This is because both sentiments are, in fact, wrong.

How can that be? Isn't one or the other true? No. Neither are true. If both were true, then ESCR practioners are the monsters the pro-life movement thinks they are, since if blastocysts truly were alive in the way that even a Fetus is alive, killing them for any reason is crossing a line that scientists should not cross. No life is expendible. ESCR is only acceptable if a blastocyst is not yet alive in the sense of having an individual soul. Luckily for the science and the ethics of all involved the pro-life movement is wrong about when life begins - as I stated in the Musings. What is new and different is the proof that the harvesting procedure used to extract stem cells for ESCR tells us about the issue.

To extract stem cells from a blastocyst, the Chorion (which eventually becomes the bag of waters) is removed. The stem cells, which would have grown into a human being, are not harmed by the procedure. (If they were, there would be little point in harvesting them). If the part that would become a life is not killed, then maybe it was not alive in the first place. Indeed, after harvesting, embryonic stem cells are no different than adult stem cells - excepting the fact that embryonic stem cells are of lower quality because they have not been through gastrulation - which is where the cell must "sink or swim" - most sink bacause they are not genetically viable. The value of Embryonic Stem Cell research is that it can be used with therapeutic cloning to eventually create organs from an individual's own cells - even if adult stem cells cannot be extracted. It is rather pointless to do ESCR without cloning, although it is not murderous. Indeed, if you attempted to extract stem cells after gastrulation, you wouldn't find very many, since they are all differentiating and you would kill them. This is a sign that after gastrulation they are alive in a way that embryonic cells - who could become more than one individual if united with a chorion - are not. After gastrulation, there is no point until death where the deliberate growth of the human being stops or radically changes. The child learns a few neat tricks at birth, like breathing and eating (although even these are practiced in utero). Whatever energy stops at death seems to start at gastrulation. Whatever that energy is, is the soul - at least from a materialistic basis. It may be chemical, it may be electrical - but it is certainly measurable by its absence at death - when entropy takes over.

Neuroscientists have run tests on the "Ghost in the Machine" theory of the soul - the belief that our internal dialogue causes our actions. They have found no such thing. Our dialogue seems to come in time after the brain has directed the action, not before. Whatever soul we do have exists in total harmony with the body, not apart from it. The intellect, at least in this life, is in no way separate from the brain. This does not foreclose spiritual activity - or even eternal life - but it does not priviledge it over the biological. We seem to be biological beings, wholely entwined with our bodies. Even our use of language is bound up with the biology of the brain. For some people, their thinking is cleary about as free as a computer - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Others, however, who are more free, seem to be able to create language and concepts that go beyond what they have heard.

Neuroscience also has something to say about the end of life - particularly the "Life After Life" experiences of those who have died and been brought back. The "flash of light" seems to be an effect of the optical cortex firing, while the experience of the life flashing before one's eyes seems to reflect the memory neuron's simultaneously firing when they are restarted when given oxygen. If anything happens between these two points, no one has said (unless they are making it up). This makes sense, because the organ we use to remember such events is not working - and is not with us while we are dead. Do we find God? No one remembers - left the brain in my body.

Finding God is actually a fairly daunting prospect, since God is not only eternal and immortal, but also beyond time. To me, the difference between being in the pressence of God in all of Her Divinity and Timelessness is frankly terrifying. To be caught in an eternal and unending moment with the immortal God is not that much removed from the total annihilation that atheists expect from death. One is total Peace and mindlessness in the face of the perfect, while the other is total piece without existence. It seems to me like six of one and a half dozen of the other. Frankly, we don't know what is on the other side, these are but the extremes. While some clarivoyants seem to believe they actually speak with the dead, their claims have never been verified. The Church has an opinion on the subject as well, although a counter-belief that we sleep until reunited with our bodies on the last day has held some currency in the past - and would not necessarily be considered heresy in some Christian circles. At any rate, it is a faithful position, not a position based on direct evidence.

The only real assurance that seems to have verification is the experience of the risen Lord, both by those who claim to have seen him almost 2000 years ago and in the Sacraments. My own experience in that area is real, and not explainable by some group dynamic. In religions with a similar group dynamic, but a different belief in the authenticity of the Eucharist as the real flesh of the risen Lord, the experience is profoundly different. Even though Baptists join in communion in the same way, when they celebrate it, their lack of belief in the real pressence in the Eucharist seems to deprive them of that direct contact with Jesus that Catholics and Anglicans enjoy. Could that all be group dynamics? One would think so, although the reports I receive from Baptists who have joined me at Mass, who have received Communion (no, I did not try to stop them) seem to indicate that the Catholic rite is different, since their experience of Jesus is more real even though they did not change their belief.

Where does that leave our souls? United with our bodies this life in a way that is seemless - and in God's hands in the next. We really don't know what eternal life looks like - and we can only trust God that we will be taken care of in the next. That kind of faith is much more important, in the long run, than is the certainly of knowing. It is also comforting when thinking of the fates of little Grace Patricia and little Brian Gerard, who for whatever reason could not be with us in this incarnation. (Sniff).

Tests for the Next Justice

E.J. Dionne writes in Monday's Post about the coming nomination fight. He urges that we not get involved in catch phrases, however, I believe such a debate might be helpful.

I would like to know from nominees what they believe "judicial activism" means, both from their own point of view and how various actors use it. More specifically, I would like to know their opinion on the rights of state minorities to challenge and overcome the power of state majorities in federal court when those majorities deny the minority their rights to equal protection under the law.

There is a right and historical way to answer this. It would be helpful if the nominee had read Gary Wills' book - A Necessary Evil, as well as Garrett Epps' Democracy Reborn. Knowledge of this history is important when contradicting the originalism of Justices Scalia and Thomas, since both works make clear that Madison, in his original House passed version of the Bill of Rights and the congressional Radical Republicans who drafted the 14th Amendment both had strong ideas about using the federal government to limit the rights of state majorities when they violated the rights of minorities.

I would have a few other questions, which of course the nominee could not answer in committee, but would ask anyway as the mention of them might prove instructive to future delibarations anyway:

On the issue of abortion, could the Congress use its enforcement powers under the 14th Amendment to set an earlier benchmark for the legal recognition of the unborn - say viability (when the lungs develop) or assisted viability - or even the start of the fetal heartbeat or some later point when natural miscarriage is rare? Didn't the Congress in fact do that when they passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act - or were they simply refining the definition of birth under the provisions of the 14th Amendment to include feet first?

On the issue of marriage, is the threshold question whether there is a rational basis for finding that the family of origin has more rights vis-a-vis a same sex spouse than they do vis-a-vis an opposite sex spouse? Was Scalia right when he stated that by protecting consensual adult private same sex relations (watching out for filters here), the Court obliterated any rational basis for outlawing gay marriage?

Of course, these are just the hot button issues. They will represent exactly two cases the Court will decide. The victory for the Republicans is that there will be much focus on these issues while the real work of the Court and the Justice Department will be coping with the undoing of the Bush/Cheney Administration's economic and international policies.

Frankly, I would really like to know the nominees opinion on putting Cheney, et al, in the docket for ordering torture - either here in the United States or in the Hague if the United States Government refuses to act.

What about the Car Dealers? Or Hedge Funds?

Mack McClarty writes about the risk of bankruptcy by GM and Chrylser to the car dealerships in today's Washington Post.

Sorry Mack, but perhaps the time for dealerships has passed. The franchise system was, in part, a way to shift product risk from the manufacturers to small business and part to prevent their sales and maintenance forces from unionizing. Neither strategy seems to be good at this juncture.

Perhaps it would be better for the dealers to sell out to the manufacturers, trading inventory and assets for stock and allowing the employees to join the UAW. In Chrysler, this would make them owners as well. It is telling that these workers were not mentioned in your piece at all.

The AP is reporting the the President will announce at noon that Chrysler is going into a short period of bankruptcy, which will allow them to deal with much of the outstanding debt held by Hedge Fund operators who refused to accept the deal proferred by Chrysler and the Administration.

Do they think that they are going to get a better deal from the bankruptcy judge? It does not seem likely. Do they seriously think that the Obama Administration is going to bail them out when they have to write these assets off when they did not play ball on Chrylser? I think not. Luckily, none of my assets have any holdings in these funds, because they are about to go south. They fought off any type of regulation in the 1990s and that decision is about to bite them hard. My advice to hedge fund managers is to leave the Lamborghini at home when going to court, because the judge may seize it as an asset for your investors. Given that the Administration is working to go after tax, and presumably asset, havens in the Caymens, et al, it doesn't take a fortune teller to see that the end is near.

The Chrysler Deal

Chrysler is about to be reorganized, going from an essentially privately owned firm to a firm owned by a combination of private firms, its employees and the federal government, with the UAW controling 55% of the pie. The actual compensation of the ownership has not yet been released and will be interesting. The last obstacle to the deal seems to be a ratification vote and an agreement by all bondholders to take less than face value (as compared to the zero they would get if the company failed).

This was actually the easy part. The hard part is how this new firm will getting people to buy cars again and as importantly how the firm will be managed. The new firm will learn about quality and participative management from Fiat, which is a good sign from my anarcho-synidicalist viewpoint, since European participative management will impact the day to day functioning of Chrysler in a way that will reduce both cost and increase human dignity. The impact of that may well be less of a need for governmental regulation. The anarcho part of me likes that a lot.

The acid test will be how profit, wages and positions are divied up. If Chrysler is run the way United is run, the experiment will be a flop. If it is run along different social assumptions, however, it may well make it, although it is a hard row to hoe. it is not easy to move from a top-down hierarchy locked in a death match with a top-down union to a more economic and egalitarian model. I have a few ideas along this line. Anyone in either management or the Union who is interested in these is free to contact me. They are laid out on my Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity web page at www.geocities.com/iowaequity/governance.html and the companion piece at www.geocities.com/iowaequity/payequity.html.

Gay Marriage in Iowa

Equal protection is equal protection. When legislating against an identifiable group, such as homosexuals, one must have a rational basis for doing so. This is true in state and federal law (and a portent for things to come). As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, as soon as private consenual sodomy is regarded as essentially private and beyond the reach of legislation, there is not rational basis for denying gays the right to marry a same sex partner.

While religious leaders talk about the role of procreation in marriage, the ability to procreate is not a requirement in either civil law or canon law to marry - (Canon law requires only the ability to function - although it still regards sodomy as disordered). Of course, the very concept of disorder requires that there be a natural order outside of human experience to damage (since God cannot be damaged). If the natural order is considered a sophistry then the disorder argument carries no weight, especially given the biological evidence that homosexuality is simply a natural variation in the species.

If inability to procreate is not a bar to marriage among heterosexuals, it cannot be so for homosexuals. Additionally, marriage is not required for procreation, although it is helpful in providing a stable environment for children. Of course, the stable environment argument favors gay marriage, given that gay parents often have custody of their children.

The key role of marriage is to separate individuals from their families of origin, creating a new family. As Jesus said, when someone is married, they leave their families and cling to their spouse, and the two will become one flesh. Practically, that means that they are legally the same person, excluding the family of origin from any power formerly held, including the right to inherit property, make decisions in illness and make funereal arrangements.

The question of marriage did not come up when there were no end of life decisions to be made. People got sick and either died or got better. Now they may or may not linger and may or may not recover. There is visitation to be decided - often with estranged families excluding a person who is essentially a spouse. While civil unions are an attempt to rectify this, they are but an act of political correctness designed not to offend the sensibilities of the religious (who have not conducted themselves toward homosexuals in anyway so as to deserve an opinion on the matter).

The key legal question is this: what compelling right do families of homosexuals have in maintain an interest in the lives of their gay family members vis a vis the member's spouse when compared to those of heterosexual family members vis a vis their spouses? In other words, why do gay spouses deserve less respect than straight spouses?Unless you can find an overwhelming rational basis for a difference, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled correctly - as will the U.S. Supreme Court when they finally see this issue.

Ultimately, Churches will see that they must celebrate gay weddings. There are two reasons. The first is that it gives them a platform to preach monogamy - a platform they do not have now by declaring all homosexual activity sinful. The second is because the wedding ceremony is a comfort for the family, not just the couple. When the famillies are rightly seen as the beneficiaries of these rites, they will begin demanding that they occur and they will be performed.

Selling Carbon (and other Sin) Taxes

Carbon Taxes, like any pollution or sin tax, are an attempt to capture the externalities associated with a transcation that are not captured in the price. Put more briefly, carbon taxes make customers who buy products which cause global warming pay for the environmental damage caused by their use of these products. The goal behind these taxes is to lessen consumption of these products and reimburse society for the harm done. The significant danger behind such levies is that they become a cash cow, which gives society an interest in setting the tax low enough that the behavior goes on. This is called codepenency in the recovery community - and it is not good. The way out of such codependent relationships is to designate all funds collected from carbon taxes (and other sin taxes) toward government spending designed to reduce or eliminate the undesireable behavior. That way, when the behavior is eliminated, the program to counteract the behavior is eliminated too.

For tobacco taxes, instead of using these funds as a cash cow, it would be better to fund smoking cessation and heart disease, cancer and COPD (formerly emphysema) treatment and research, as well as programs to help tobacco farmers find an alternate crop (such as fish farming). If taxes are not high enough to adequately fund all the consequences, the tax would be raised. If all programs are well funded and there is money left over, the taxes would be decreased.

Alcohol taxes would fund both addiction prevention and treatment and the criminal justice systems, since alcohol is the most likely gateway drug to other substances and because it is also responsible for the vast majority of violent and property crimes. If marijuana and other drugs were made legal, they could be taxed as well - although other drugs such as meth, heroin and crack cocaine would still be considered dangerous and use considered grounds for mandatory inpatient treatment (rather than incarceration). If taxes on alcohol and drugs are too low to fund needed treatment and incarceration activities, they would be raised. While most people who imbibe do not cause negative consequences to society, a minority of users who are alcoholic or addicted consume most of the alcohol and drugs sold, so these consumers would pay most of the taxes and use most of the required services. Of course, taxes should not be so high that black market sources of supply are encouraged.

Carbon taxes hold the most promise for identifying offsetting spending programs. The way to sell these taxes is to link already popular spending programs to the tax, rather than to the general fund. Gas taxes should become a carbon tax and be allocated for both advanced transportation research as well as road building and mass transit, including Amtrack. Reforestation would also be funded by carbon taxes. All hydro-electric projects performed by the Corps of Engineers should be funded by Carbon Taxes, as well as new nuclear power plants and the Office of Fusion Energy. Indeed, carbon taxes should be increased enough to accelerate this research beyond the current timetable, since Helium-3 Fusion reactors are both absolutely save and emissions free. Once the technology is fully developed, it will be commercially viable on its own and will eliminate the need for almost all mechanical emissions of carbon gasses for power, industry and transportation. Putting the pork barrel lobby behind the carbon tax cannot but help hurry the day where this is possible.

A Letter to My Bishop

His Excellency, Paul S. Loverde
The Diocese of Arlington
Arlington, Virginia

Your Excellency,

I write today regarding your annual Lenten appeal and your recent outreach efforts regarding the Freedom of Choice Act. As I suspect that the appeal includes support for the diocesan pro-life office, I am afraid I cannot contribute this year. Instead, we will contribute directly to Catholic Charities, among other agencies.

FOCA materials distributed at Mass in January. I did not complete and return the postcard to the volunteers collecting them and will not be doing so any time soon. The fact that they were centrally collected leads me to expect that the purpose of this campaign had more to do with grassroots organizing than it did with communicating with Congress.

Make no mistake, I do not agree with many of the provisions of FOCA, however given that it has never made it out of committee, I suspect its mention has more to do with the usual opportunism of those who make their living from fundraising on the abortion issue. Likewise, its mention during the campaign likely had more to do with Republican coalition politics than any real danger of the Act’s passage.

One of the myths advanced to support the post card effort is the contention that FOCA would create a right to abortion in law. That has already occurred in both Roe and as the result of the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes in federal law the right to abortion (Section 1841, Clause (D) (c)).

Another myth was that Catholic hospitals would have to close. According to the leadership of the Catholic Health Association, this is also false.

On January 22nd, as every year, thousands marched on the Supreme Court to mark the bittersweet anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Boulton in 1973. What makes it all the more bittersweet is the focus of the pro-life movement on Republican electoral politics and organizational fundraising. While some efforts have been at the margins, the fact that these could be annihilated by one congressional action testify to thirty six years of failure to address the real issues involved in reducing abortions.

Overturning Roe makes for a nice slogan, however there is almost no chance that this can happen, nor should it. In United States v. Carhart, three of the Justices in the Majority rejected the analysis that Roe was wrongly decided, relying instead on the authority of the Commerce Clause to regulate medical practice. They could have easily have used the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which empowers the Congress to enforce and therefore interpret the Amendment itself by conferring legal recognition on the fetus at some point prior to birth. Justice Kennedy’s revulsion at the procedure as an act of infanticide demonstrates the Courts continued reliance on the Amendment for guidance on when to recognize the rights of the child. That the most recent appointees to the Court agreed with Justice Kennedy testify to the fact that Roe will not be overturned at any time in the near future.

While the result of Roe may be tragic (although the argument can be made that the majority of abortions which occur today would have occurred without it), its conclusions are not. The central holding was that women have a right to medical privacy on this issue. This holding is based on the premise that there was nothing in the law which gave recognition to the fetus as anything more than chattel. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the penalty for abortion was a simple fine, which is approximately the penalty for killing the neighbor’s dog. This provided no basis for finding that the fetus had legal rights under the law.

Neither the Court nor the States can constitutionally grant these rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. As stated previously, Congress as the sovereign legislature must be the source of any recognition of the rights of the unborn, both because of its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment and its power to regulate the terms of citizenship.

More alarming in the body of pro-life rhetoric is the “federalist” position that the matter should be returned to the states (although the original Federalists would chafe at the use of the term, which more faithfully represents an anti-federalist states’ rights position). Overturning Roe in this way would create the specter of abortion states and non-abortion states, repeating the mistake of antebellum America’s handling of slavery. If Roe were reversed in this manner judicially, the effects would be more far reaching, as this could conceivable gut federal supremacy in a variety of areas, including civil rights, the rights of criminals, the privacy rights of gays and lesbians and the rights of the Catholic Church to operate without interference in areas with large Protestant majorities.

While overturning federal supremacy is something of an article of faith for conservatives, it must be abandoned by the pro-life movement, particularly among Catholics, who were an integral part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, cosponsoring the original and subsequent Marches on Washington. Given the fact that the recent election of President Obama would have been impossible without the civil rights movement, perhaps it is time to disassociate the pro-life movement from any position which would be seen as an attempt to repudiate the gains of the civil rights movement.

There only remain two options for protecting the unborn legally. The first is a constitutional amendment. There are at least thirteen reasons this will never happen, that being the number of states required to block any amendment from ratification. The chance that a Human Life Amendment will even make it to this stage is remote, given the propensity of pro-life politicians for pandering over action over the past 36 years. This leaves simple legislation, which as I have pointed out is entirely possible, although it may prove fatal to Republicans with ulterior motives, since success would likely de-radicalize a major portion of its base.

The reliance on a judicial strategy and the possibility of a constitutional amendment allows pro-life candidates to avoid discussion of several of the difficult issues raised when the prospect of limiting abortion is seriously discussed. Often, these issues come from the base, particularly the resistance to any compromise at all.

When abortion was banned as a medical procedure, the punishment was a fine. This would not be possible today, since the only way to get beyond privacy rights is to provide legally unprecedented recognition of the child. With that recognition will come equal protection rights, including the right to justice and the right to sue for torts. When the child is a separate entity, any fetal loss of life goes from private tragedy to public event. The implications of this change have received scant analysis, the burden of which is on the proponents.

The impact on the practice of obstetrics will not be trivial, as the principle of equal justice would demand that the survivors of any legally recognized fetus lost to miscarriage would be entitled to at least sue for monetary compensation. As most miscarriages result from genetic abnormalities in the deceased child, most such cases would not go far, if they are not instead settled by insurance carriers. Such nuisance filings, however, would indeed impact the availability of prenatal care. The empowerment of prosecutors and attorneys with a pro-life political agenda should also not be underestimated. The victims of such zeal would most likely be families who have recently suffered a miscarriage. The last thing these individuals need at such times is the presence of zealous attorneys.

The pro-life movement does not like to say that women will be jailed for having abortions, however under the principles of equal justice, this is what must happen. If the proponents do not have a taste for this, they must pursue a different course of action.

Studies have shown that women in poverty are four times as likely to have an abortion. This is an embarrassing statistic to those who resist economic remedies for abortion. If eighty percent of abortions have to do with income and the empowerment of women and young families, perhaps economics is where the solution lies.

The Church has been proactive in working for living wage legislation, increased access to health care and daycare and all of those traditionally liberal measures which makes the rightward tilt of some Bishops, including your Excellency, all that more disconcerting.

Over and above the Church’s policy advocacy, there is much more it can do without the assistance of the government.

Catholic business-owners and stock holders who do not provide a living wage could be excommunicate, although to do this, parishes and diocesan agencies would have to set an example by giving a sizable wage increase whenever a child is to be born – irregardless of the base wage of the employee. While this would be easier to do if federal and state tax credits supported the effort, perhaps Church leadership in this area would spur the government to act.

More vexing is the problem of Catholic parents obtaining abortions for their daughters. These parents do not utilize family planning clinics, but rather arrange for hospital abortions (thus avoiding prayerful witness or identification by the parish priest). Considering that the Catholic Church owns and operates the largest private educational system on the planet, this does not have to be. Parents obtain abortions for their children so that they can have a future. It should not be the parents’ choice. Rather, when a teenage girl is pregnant, the new life should be celebrated and the couple wed, with both parents offered both free tuition, room, board, daycare and a stipend for their high school and college years. For those students who are not college bound – an underserved majority of Catholic youth, Catholic vocational-technical schools should be established with the same set of benefits – or scholarships and housing offered at a non-Catholic institution while Catholic institutions are being established. The witness of Catholic education should not be limited to those bound for college.

Catholic sexual morality is also part of the blame for the number of abortions among Catholic teens. Many parents insist on abortion rather than adoption or marriage for their children because of the reflection on them as parents. This issue should be addressed in no uncertain terms.

Until the Church does everything it can in its own purview, it should refrain from telling me how to vote. It is no sin to not give my vote to opportunists who talk a good game on abortion, yet refuse to act. Indeed, Republican welfare reform provisions capping benefits at five years are likely a cause of abortion. If abortion is truly the most important issue facing us today, one cannot in good conscience vote or support Republicans without seeking absolution.


Yours in Christ,



Michael Gerard Bindner
Blessed Sacrament Parish

Family Income

Dalton Conley of NYU writes in Sunday's Washington Post about family income inequality. In reaction to the Lilly Ledbetter Act, he notes how women working, professionals marrying professionals and the lack of a "family wage" have put some families at the top of the economic ladder while others struggle for decent shelter. He argues that we must do something. He is correct - although not specific.

As I have said in this space previously, as long as professional women expect their professional husbands to keep working, they are at a disadvantage - as men have testosterone which causes them to strive to be top dog at work. If women want those jobs, they need to allow their husbands to become full time child rearers and happily pay greens fees when the kids are in school. With less male competition, women are more likely to get that promotion.

The idea of a family wage needs to come back - and it needs to extend to everyone, regardless of their "base wage" or productivity - which means it must be subsidized by the tax code. The responsibility of filing most taxes should rest with the employer (who actually writes the check anyway - they pay taxes and workers get a rebate each year). Corporate Income Tax can be expanded to Business Income Taxes - covering all forms of ownership. Wages can also be made taxable for the Business Income Tax, with a much higher floor for personal income taxes, which should in essence become a high income surtax of 3% (for the current 28% bracket) to 15% (for the restored 39.6% bracket). All the usual credits (child care, EITC, college savings, Child Tax Credit, the mortgage deduction, health care and insurance) would be against the BIT and be paid either to the employee or to the employer if they are providing the relevant service (like comprehensive health insurance or a no-interest mortgage). Non-retirement payroll taxes would also be merged into the B.I.T., with optional credits for offering superior retiree health coverage, severance and disability rather than having the government do it.

This tool could greatly increase equality, given the political will to raise the dependent credit to living wage levels (like $500 per month per dependent - including dependent spouses). It would in essence be a hidden Value Added Tax and may be used with a visible VAT to give the illusion that everyone shares in the duty to pay taxes. With a VAT, the BIT could be set to a rate where it mostly distributes tax and social insurance benefits, although some firms with fewer dependents or retirees may pay some net tax, while others would keep a portion of the VAT proceeds if they have more social obligations.

Watching Daytona

Sunday, I watched the Daytona 500. In the old days, the race would come on around noon and be over in time for dinner, if not before. Now, the engines are revved at 3:30. Given Florida's weather, there was rain in the late afternoon - so the race was called early - just in time for the Fox evening line-up. The race ticker went to fast and scrolled at the top of the screen, while the eye naturally goes to the bottom, since that is where the cars are.

I was also watching 3 little girls (my daughter and her two best friends), who were in the living room watching Dora the Explorer videos and generally spreading dolls all over the house.

In prior years, the race was a sporting event. Now, with all the hype and interviews, it more resembles reality TV.

How about more racing, earlier racing, and less personality. Will I watch next year? Probably. Will I enjoy it, probably not.

Blogging Today's Post

So much to talk about this weekend.

In the Early Sunday edition, Dan Egggen talks about how Bush White House Staffers, particularly Dick Cheney, are speaking out about the President's policies. While it is understandable that Bush's GOPeons would want to hit back after Obama's inaugral address, they should remember that some of them are at risk for prosecution for war crimes relating to the torture of detainees and in general ignoring the Geneva Convention.

Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of AEI weigh in favoring an expansion of the F-22 program, which may be shut down this year, as part of the stimulus package (a bit late of them if you ask me, since they are currently voting on final passage). These suggestions would make sense if the F-22 was at all vulnerable. Recent experience has shown that the F-15 has not yet been ecliplsed, raising the question of whether the F-35 will be needed at all.
It would be better if the stimulus of the aerospace industry were directed not to the purchase of unneeded weapons, but toward an expansion of the civilian space program.

Closer to home, Bill Press writes about the closing of his radio outlet, OBAMA 1260 AM, alledging some right wing conspiracy to shut down liberal talk radio. As one who would like to break into progressive talk radio, I would favor a return of the equal time rule. However, I marvel how he fails to mention at all the existence of a thriving African American progressive talk radio community. A blind spot perhaps?

Finally, Rakesh Khurana and Andy Zelleke write about executive pay. The authors analyze the problem correctly, but offer no new solutions. Here is one - move toward not only employee-ownership but also employee control and workplace democracy (with pay one of those things put up to a vote). I gaurantee that if we go down that road, the culture of the CEO will collapse and business will once gain serve the shareholders, the customers, the employees and the public.

NFL Championship Rankings

Here are the top ten rankings for this year in the NFL, both for appearances and wins.

Congratulations Pittsburgh!

By Appearance (Contenders):Rank Team Appearances (wins)
1 Dallas 24 (13)
2 NY Giants 22 (10)
3 Pittsburgh 21 (13) (Passing Green Bay)
4 Green Bay 19 (13)
5 Oakland 19 (8)
6 San Francisco, Washington 17 (10) tie
8 St. Louis 17 (6)
9 Chicago 15 (9)
10 New England 14 (9)

Baltimore, who lost the AFC championship, moves to 26th with 3 appearances - although if you reject the fiction that they are not the former Cleveland Browns their real number of appearances is 17 with 6 championship wins (ranking them 8th in a tie with St. Louis). Arizona is tied for 22nd (or 23rd if Baltimore gets its history back from Cleveland) with 4 appearances and two wins. Philadelphia moves to 16th with 12 appearances and 5 wins (or 17th if Baltimore is counted correctly).

If you count championship trophies as your first criteria, with championship record as your tie breaker, Sunday night's win moves Pittsburgh to #2. Phili stayed at 15 with its NFC championship loss. Baltimore stays at 21st with its AFC loss and Arizona moves up to a 4 way tie for 22nd with the other 2-2 teams with its NFC win and Super Bowl loss.

By Victories (Champions):
Rank Team(s) Win-Loss
1 Green Bay 13-6
2 Pittsburgh 13-8
3 Dallas 13-11
4 San Francisco, Washington (tie) 10-7
6 New York 10-12
7 New England 9-5
8 Chicago 9-6
9 Denver 8-6
10 Oakland 8-11

If Pittsburgh repeats next year, they will be the undisputed greatest of all time, leading not only in Super Bowl victories, but in total League, Conference and Super Bowl wins. Of course, in the League's history a pre-Super Bowl championship is equivalent to a Super Bowl and a Conference Championship is a lesser prize. By that reckoning, Green Bay is still hard to beat with 9 total League championships. I disagree, since they still give trophies for Conference victories. The original Super Bowl was AFL v. NFL. Because these merged to form a new NFL, the conferences can be called succeeding organizations with equivalent championships to the old leagues.That's a discussion for later years. For this year - Hooray for Pittsburgh!

The First Three Commandments

In my book, Musings from the Christian Left, I address the topics ofChristian Humanism and liberation morality. My thesis is that human morality exists not for God, but for man, just as the Sabbath exists for man, not man for the Sabbath.

When I took Ethics class at Loras College, we discussed the obligatory nature of right action - that it is something we ought to do, not only because it fulfills us but because God deserves our good behavior. I never quite agreed with this last point, but it does raise the question of the first part of the Great Commandment, that You shall love the Lord, your God with all of your heart, all of your mind and all of your strength. The question again arises, why must you? Does God benefit from these things, or are they solely for our benefit?

We avoid idol worship because the idols are not real, although the Priests behind these cults are both real and greedy. We do not break the second commandment so that we do not take the pressence of God lightly. We rest and worship on the Sabbath so that we might have something to do in life other than work as human beings, not human doings. Jesus gave us a clue when he said the Sabbath was for man. God does not need our worship. If he did, he would not be worthy of worship. God freely choses to accept our worship, he does not require it.

It is good that God does not need our worship, for God would be in bad shape if He did. Our worship is but refrigerator art when compared with the worship of the angels, who do not say their prayers as much as sing them. I am a cradle Catholic, so I have heard the quality of human singing in Church. Angelic prayers are total expressions of who they are. This is why Satan could not fathom why Jesus would become man instead of one of his own angels. His real sin was to think that his prayer was essential to God. God freely choses to accept angelic prayer, which is simply a higher form of refrigerator art when compared with the perfect harmony of the Blessed Trinity. Let us not make the same mistake as Satan.

Bailout Options

In today's Washington Post, David Ignatius and others talk about the bailout and the greatest generation. Whether the current bailout works or not, the Alt-A mortgage bubble will force the need for a new one. We need to be careful that we do not simply repeat the mistakes which set this one in motion by having too low interest rates leading to a reinflation of the housing bubble.

There are five reasonable options here. The first is liquidation - providing a means through bankruptcy or some other systematic default mechanism to allow people to get out of debt that does not work.

The second option is to end tht toxic practice of allowing people to get home equity loans to "cash out" equity for vacations and the payment of credit card balances - since this simply leads to more debting. Ending the deductibility of these interest payments would take care of this nicely, possibly as a part of comprehensive tax reform.

A third provision is to create government progams for borrowers to refinance their Alt-A morgages at lower fixed rates through their state housing finance agencies. This could be done either with or without adjustment of the principal balance. If the principal balance is adjusted, however, the government needs to reach back and capture through taxation some of the extreme capital gains people made in when the housing bubble was growing. For some, this would be a wash, since they sunk their gains into a new property which is now worth less then the purchase price - however other sellers got out and stayed out - although many of these probably lost money by investing in the toxic paper that resulted from these very transactions. If we bail them out for these investments, it must be net of their undo capital gains. This is why a government bailout is necessary, as the private sector has no place making such distinctions.

The fourth and most important piece of any bailout should be higher incomes. If incomes catch up to housing values, much of the problem goes away and housing prices can stabilize and debt will be repaid. Calls for governmental budget cuts, teacher furloughs, lower union wages need to be resisted - since they will exacerbate the problem. If anything, people should be getting raises and the minimum wage increased. For any who are displaced in the private sector, massive education funds with stipends should be made available when people are operating at a human capital deficit.

The fifth point is to increase the top tax rates, not at $250,000 but at $150,000, to at least Clintonian levels - as well as restoring the capital gains and investment rates to those levels as well. This will put more money in the consumption and government sector and take it out of the chase for overpriced investment instruments. Stock prices and real estate values were bid up because the wealthy and upper middle class had more money then the productive sector had investment opportunities - so toxic investment opportunities were created and unrealistic profit goals were required to compete. Take away the fuel for the fire and all will settle down.

Merry Christmas, Good Yule

For all who believe the Lord Jesus is the light of their life in the dark of winter, Merry Christmas.

To Jesus and all his countrymen and women, Happy Chanuka! (It's not his birthday - that was calculated by astrologers to be April 17, 7 BCE - the date the Magi would have said the King of the Jews would be born when a major conjunction was evident in Aries, the sign of ancient Israel).

To pagans, wiccans and hard partiers, Good Yule! Of course, the actual feast was the solstice a few days ago and the big party is next week on December 31, so why not split the difference, eh?

Saturnalia and pagan themes keep creeping into the holiday. They should. People need a good party when the days get short and the nights get long. In ancient times, the solstice and related Saturnalia was on December 25. The Gregorian calender places it on December 21, although it would have been more thoughtful to make it January 1 - although that was too much pagan symbolism for St. Gregory.

We now know that pagan symbolism is not really about idol worship. Instead, it is about attempting to understand the human condition. There is something in the human condition that demands togetherness and a bit of revelry when the shadows get long. While spirituality has its place in this equation, for most people there is nothing wrong with letting go once in a while (and for others there is Midnight Mass and marathon AA meetings). As a society, we should realize this and possibly move the New Year to what is now the winter solstice. Christmas can be celebrated on either the preceding Sunday or the following Sunday, whichever is closer. Of course, if we wanted a stable calander, January 1 (the solstice) could be a Sunday, with additonal days to make sure it always lands there added between June 30 and July 1 (with July 31 taken away). Map it out for yourself - it works. Christmas can still be December 25, on what is now December 18th, or on January 7th, what is now December 28th. I have a feeling businesses would rather have the earlier day, for tax purposes and because shopping is easier when it is warmer. As we found out this week - so is travel.

Fair Tax Compromise

Cross posted from Facebook:

In the past two elections, the Democrats have picked up 75 seats. It will take some really bad government to reverse this and movement by the Republican Party to the left on both economic and social issues. While oppossing gay marriage may appeal to the older demographic, it won't do well with younger voters, who are growing older and becoming more and more of a majority. What does this all mean? It means compromise is necessary on the Fair Tax should the nation like Mike and elect him President. One of the reasons I voted for Huck is that a compromise between the Fair Tax and what the Democrats would propose looks remarkably like the tax plan I favor, which is similar to the Competitive Tax Plan of Michael Graetz of Yale. Michael of was George H.W. Bush's Director of Tax Policy, so he is hardly a flaming liberal.

Professor Graetz proposes a Value Added Tax combined with a Simplified Income Tax with a $50K individual/$100K family standard deduction. He would also provide the prebate for paying VAT taxes to poor families, the Child Credit and the EITC as an offset to payroll or through a Smart Card.

I suggest going beyond the Graetz prebate to a full up $500 per month per dependent child and spouse tax credit on an expanded Business Income Tax (Graetz would cut the tax rate to 15%) payable by all employers, not just corporations, with labor costs no longer deductible. I would also have this tax cover Unemployment, Survivors Insurance payable to non-retired widows, Disability Insurance and Medicare Taxes. I would also roll any Obama health insurance reform taxes into the Business Income Tax rate and allow any deductions or credits to be made against Business Income Taxes, whether insurance is paid by employers or employees. There would also be education credits for vo-tech, college and remedial adult education arranged by the employer and students or welfare recipients would have to get an employer or religious organization to sponsor them as employees and would be paid to go to school, with some part-time work requirement as well and the full range of tax benefits available to them. This would be in concert with state and local government. There would be no other public assistance.

Old Age and Senior Survivor's Insurance would be privatized, with some of the employer paid portion going to voting stock in the employer, if applicable, as well as a trust fund of similar employee-owned firms. Part of the employee contribution would also be invested in the same way, however the employer contribution would be credited equally, regardless of base wage. Additionally, the base minimum wage would be set to at least $12 per hour so that no one pays their employees solely with tax credits. Because some workers salaries will go down due to the tax credit, the income cap on Social Security contributions will be raised to capture 95% of wage income, thus raising the average. Workers under 35 would be under the new plan, while workers over 35 would stay under the old unless they and their firms opt to convert to the new plan by fully capitalizing all past and current older workers with stock as if they had been in the plan from day one. Firms and employees that take this option would no longer pay FICA retirement taxes.

This plan would reduce the need for government employees while still meeting all of the public purposes set out in current programs. The education and dependent benefit provisions would also take away most incentives to abortion. The benefits should be good enough so that young people in a family way can get married and husbands won't care whether the child who would have been aborted to cover an affair was really their's.

Abortion from a Christian Leftist Huckabee supporter's perspective

Cross posted from Facebook.

I like what Mike Huckabee says about abortion. For too long the National Right to Life Committee has advocated a "Federalist" approach, although the original radical republicans and even Hamilton would call such a position anti-federalist or states rights. Any solution must be national, if only because people travel to have abortions or to procure them for their daughters, which is pretty much what they do now. Many admit that not much would change on the abortion front should Roe v. Wade be overturned in such a way as to restore state authority.

What exactly did states do when they had the authority? They imposed fines on abortionists.

Come again?

That's right, fines. This is why Justice Blackmun said that there was no right to life before Roe. If your only protection is a fine, you aren't protected. Animal cruelty has higher penalties. It seems the only effect of the law was to create a black market for abortion, travel for abortion and back alley and self-induced abortion.

I'm not working for that. Roe makes clear that the only way to trump the right of privacy, which is legitimate if abortion is only about medical regulation, is to recognize the legal personhood of the unborn.Sounds good? It depends on how you draw the line.

Personhood implies equal protection under the law. This means that anyone who tells you that fetal rights means only punishing doctors is either misinformed or fibbing (to put it politely). Full human rights means just that. It means that if you die, your relatives can sue the doctor for malpractice. It means that if you get killed, the state is obligated to prosecute the person who killed you and anyone who paid to have it done as an accessory to murder or manslaughter. It also means similar penalties to killing a child or even an adult. Whether you accept it or not, every fetal death becomes a public matter if there is no right to privacy.

How many pro-life women consent to talking to the police, prosecutors or a grand jury if the authorities suspect that your OB/GYN has been doing too many D&C's if you've recently had one yourself? What if they suspect that yours was not justified and treat you as such?This is not about the police going after "them" but going after you. Equal protection is equal protection.

If you think malpractice is high for OB/GYNs, just wait until every miscarriage is a potential court case. Granting full protection, which is required to overturn privacy, means just that. It is not a nightmare scenario. It is giving power to lawyers to pursue wrongful death cases, which most insurance companies will simply settle - although good luck finding obstetric care until after two months of gestation have passed and a miscarriage is no longer likely. This is what Blackmun was talking about when he stated that legal abortion was necessary to protect all obstetricians, not just abortionists.

It takes maturity to come to grips with this. It also takes honesty.

I am frankly sick and tired of those individuals who run for office saying that they are pro life while appealing to emotionalism about the unborn, soft pedaling the real legal concerns. This is called opportunism, and what else can you call it with more than 35 years of fundraising and no real viable solutions to the root problem. That's three and a half decades of death rather than compromise.Shame.

The fact is, before 23 weeks, a fetus cannot survive if born, while after it can with medical intervention. That seems like a reasonable line. Another might be the fetal heartbeat at 4 weeks of gestation (6 weeks or so from the last period). While I believe that life begins at gastrulation (rather than conception) and the best embryologiss agree, the heartbeat is a natural start of legal life when its cessation is considered the moment of death.

Huckabee likely does not agree with this, however I supported him in the primary because he would likely put in enough income supports for families that the abortion rate would go down anyway - judging by his performance as Arkansas Governor.

He also stated that he favored a life amendment. This is code for saying he wasn't about to do anything to quickly. A life amendent would need 2/3 of the House to pass, as well as 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states. It is regarded among constitutional scholars as the impossible dream of the pro-life movement and why overturning Roe was thought to be more attainable.Of course, it is only unattainable if it is attempted as an all or nothing position. If it is important to stop abortion, primarily in the later terms, then maybe its time to compromise on the 23rd week. Also, it may be that an Amendment is not necessary. The Congress is sovereign in matters of citizenship (not the states). Under the 14th Amendment, it has the power to enforce equal protection. Part of enforcement is deciding issues, like whether at some stage the rights of the child are equal to those of the mother. In the partial birth case, even though it was not spelled out, Congress was able to regulate abortion precisely because the fetus was in contact with air. Being a little bit born is like being a little bit pregnant. If any of you is out, you are legally a person. Congress could likely go further, although doing so takes work.

It takes the willingness to compromise - not easy when you are dealing with conservatives on a moral issue. It also takes specificity in deciding what legal protection really means. Let's say I am wrong about lawsuits and criminal charges. The way to make me wrong is to publish some language to make sure these things aren't issues - or admit that they are - and engage opponents in discussion.Its time to end the emotionalism of this debate and get down to brass tacks. Anything else is too much like what that other Governor from Arkansas would do. You know who I mean. The slick one.