Recently, I took my first flight in a long time—a long, long time. In fact, the last flight was in the previous millennium. Okay, so my life lacks excitement. Not the point. The point is that this was a traumatic event for a cranky old guy.
For one thing, major surgery had occurred since the last flight, and I have various leftover wires and perhaps other surgical paraphernalia embedded in my being. For another thing, airport security procedures had been substantially tightened. Horror stories of fondling, strip searches, and other aggressive intrusions abound. I had visions of shivering naked in a cold room as sadistic individuals entered various bodily orifices in pursuit of offending images on the x-ray machines.
The other matter of concern was that I would be separated from a faithful companion for a period of time, a companion I was much dependent upon, both physically and emotionally. That companion was my Swiss Army knife with its plethora of useful blades and tools. I had been led to believe that in the post-9/ll environment, one could be imprisoned for life for even thinking about carrying a pocketknife on a plane. Since I was trying to avoid checking any baggage, I would be without the faithful companion for several days. The thought made me even more cranky.
In preparation for the flight and the possible examinations of my person, I decided to break down and wear underwear and clean socks; or was that socks and clean underwear? Whatever the case, I wanted to avoid as much embarrassment as possible.
To my surprise, the trips through the various security checkpoints went without a hitch. Profiling might have had something to do with it. Each time I went through the security gauntlet, I was in the middle of a group of sinister-looking characters who corralled the attention. Tattoos seemed to particularly wet the appetites of the checkers. So all the concern about being pawed by strangers turned out to be unwarranted.
But the absence of the Swiss Army knife was a problem, and for an unanticipated reason. Cranky old guys have their habits, and one of mine is two beers before bed. The kind of places I stay in do not have room service, so I purchased my beer—in bottles—at the local minimart. Bedtime approached. I reached for the trusty Swiss Army knife to pop the caps, and Holy #&*#!
So if you ever stay in a motel near the town of Woodstock, Vermont, and wonder about the various gouges in odd places—such as on the door frame near the hinges, around the sink, below the shower faucet handles—you know that the cranky old guy was there.
DSH
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY
If one owns Kennebunkport, the appeal of an Ownership Society is certainly understandable. For many of the rest of us citizens, however, the attractiveness of the concept is somewhat nuanced.
Ownership Society is a term that was being bandied about several months ago in support of adding some form of personal investment accounts to the social security system. The whole topic of social security reform seems to have fallen off the radar screen here recently, but it will no doubt resurface.
The Ownership Society argument apparently is that the more control we have over our own wealth and finances, the better off we will be, both monetarily and emotionally. But the proponents of the argument do not pay a great deal of attention to how different levels of wealth and finances might fare under an Ownership Society, or how citizens in those different levels might view an Ownership Society.
Those at the top of the wealth pyramid are probably all for a 100 percent Ownership Society. The fact that they have wealth is evidence to them that they can do a much better job of creating and maintaining wealth than can the government. (The fact that many of them inherited their wealth rather than created it is something they often overlook.) A goodly proportion of those with less wealth, however, aren’t as convinced that they can beat the system. Oh, they certainly want a considerable degree of freedom to handle their own finances, but they aren’t adverse to, and may even desire, some form of common safety net.
Moreover, if the matter comes down to what may be no more than a small annuity, say a social security payment of $ 750, $1,000, or even $1,500 a month, do many people really want to incur additional risk in order to have more “ownership?”
So the proponents of the Ownership Society concept might want to refine their arguments a bit. To date, the Ownership Society has sounded like a great thing if you already own a lot of stuff. But it hasn’t sounded like a way to get a lot of stuff if you are starting from little or no stuff.
And one other thing. One of the backers of such concepts as the Ownership Society is the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered a little that some policy makers appear to put so much stock in advice from an organization named after the President who presided over the Crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression?
DSH
Ownership Society is a term that was being bandied about several months ago in support of adding some form of personal investment accounts to the social security system. The whole topic of social security reform seems to have fallen off the radar screen here recently, but it will no doubt resurface.
The Ownership Society argument apparently is that the more control we have over our own wealth and finances, the better off we will be, both monetarily and emotionally. But the proponents of the argument do not pay a great deal of attention to how different levels of wealth and finances might fare under an Ownership Society, or how citizens in those different levels might view an Ownership Society.
Those at the top of the wealth pyramid are probably all for a 100 percent Ownership Society. The fact that they have wealth is evidence to them that they can do a much better job of creating and maintaining wealth than can the government. (The fact that many of them inherited their wealth rather than created it is something they often overlook.) A goodly proportion of those with less wealth, however, aren’t as convinced that they can beat the system. Oh, they certainly want a considerable degree of freedom to handle their own finances, but they aren’t adverse to, and may even desire, some form of common safety net.
Moreover, if the matter comes down to what may be no more than a small annuity, say a social security payment of $ 750, $1,000, or even $1,500 a month, do many people really want to incur additional risk in order to have more “ownership?”
So the proponents of the Ownership Society concept might want to refine their arguments a bit. To date, the Ownership Society has sounded like a great thing if you already own a lot of stuff. But it hasn’t sounded like a way to get a lot of stuff if you are starting from little or no stuff.
And one other thing. One of the backers of such concepts as the Ownership Society is the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered a little that some policy makers appear to put so much stock in advice from an organization named after the President who presided over the Crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression?
DSH
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
LIBERALS & CONSERVATIVES: A PRIMER
Liberals think too much. Conservatives don’t think enough.
Conservatives want to conquer nature. Liberals want accommodation with nature.
Liberals love all government regulation except regulation they don’t agree with. Conservatives hate all government regulation except regulation they agree with.
Liberals are permissive. Conservatives are, well, not.
Conservatives see absolutes. Liberals see nuance.
Liberals endlessly and agonizingly fret over conflicts among their values, beliefs, positions, and actions. Conservatives embrace hypocrisy.
Liberals consider sex an end in itself. Conservatives are suspicious of something so potentially pleasurable.
Conservatives view taxes as an evil second only to sodomy. Liberals would rather pay taxes than eat.
Liberals wonder why. Conservatives respond because.
Conservatives say the answer is obvious. Liberals can’t agree on the question.
DSH
Conservatives want to conquer nature. Liberals want accommodation with nature.
Liberals love all government regulation except regulation they don’t agree with. Conservatives hate all government regulation except regulation they agree with.
Liberals are permissive. Conservatives are, well, not.
Conservatives see absolutes. Liberals see nuance.
Liberals endlessly and agonizingly fret over conflicts among their values, beliefs, positions, and actions. Conservatives embrace hypocrisy.
Liberals consider sex an end in itself. Conservatives are suspicious of something so potentially pleasurable.
Conservatives view taxes as an evil second only to sodomy. Liberals would rather pay taxes than eat.
Liberals wonder why. Conservatives respond because.
Conservatives say the answer is obvious. Liberals can’t agree on the question.
DSH
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
IT'S NOT OUR FAULT
The President just gave the nation a pep talk on Iraq. The gist of the talk seemed to be that the American people are becoming the problem. We don’t have the fortitude to persevere for the long haul. We lack the insight to see that all of the Administration’s actions were made necessary by 9/11. And most important, in questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq, we are letting down our men and women in uniform.
To make up for our shortcomings, we need to look for ways to express support for our troops. We need to fly the flag on July 4. And implicitly, we need to stop questioning the competence of our leaders.
Well, I’m not buying it. It is not the American people who are letting down our troops but our civilian leaders. As an example of the ineptitude with which the war in Iraq has been waged, the President said in his speech that if his generals said they needed more troops, he would give them more troops. But shortly before or after that statement, he said more troops were not the answer because more troops would send a message to the Iraqis that we were never leaving.
The issue at this stage should not be whether the war in Iraq was necessary. That Rubicon has been crossed. Let the historians, and the presidential candidates in 2008, rehash that matter. The issue today is whether we are pursuing our national goals, including our goals in Iraq, in a competent manner. Another Republican president in another time of national testing was not afraid to punish failure by making changes. Abraham Lincoln went through several generals before he finally found one, Grant, who could get the job done.
George Bush needs to take a similar approach. His team has made a number of mistakes in the war in Iraq. Instead of blaming the American people, he should look at the architects of those mistakes. And the primary architect is the Secretary of Defense. If George Bush really wants to get the American people back on his side, as they were in those months following September 11, 2001, he should start by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
DSH
To make up for our shortcomings, we need to look for ways to express support for our troops. We need to fly the flag on July 4. And implicitly, we need to stop questioning the competence of our leaders.
Well, I’m not buying it. It is not the American people who are letting down our troops but our civilian leaders. As an example of the ineptitude with which the war in Iraq has been waged, the President said in his speech that if his generals said they needed more troops, he would give them more troops. But shortly before or after that statement, he said more troops were not the answer because more troops would send a message to the Iraqis that we were never leaving.
The issue at this stage should not be whether the war in Iraq was necessary. That Rubicon has been crossed. Let the historians, and the presidential candidates in 2008, rehash that matter. The issue today is whether we are pursuing our national goals, including our goals in Iraq, in a competent manner. Another Republican president in another time of national testing was not afraid to punish failure by making changes. Abraham Lincoln went through several generals before he finally found one, Grant, who could get the job done.
George Bush needs to take a similar approach. His team has made a number of mistakes in the war in Iraq. Instead of blaming the American people, he should look at the architects of those mistakes. And the primary architect is the Secretary of Defense. If George Bush really wants to get the American people back on his side, as they were in those months following September 11, 2001, he should start by firing Donald Rumsfeld.
DSH
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
More Taxes Mean Tax Relief
Since The Washington Post is unlikely to publishing the following letter to the editor, I heareby offer it to you, dear readers:
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Dear Mr. MacMillan [The Washington Post writer]:
Your recent story, “Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops” (16 June 2005) is grossly inaccurate. You write, “The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners.”
Please allow me to disabuse you of the idea that Alexandria has lost any revenue from any source whatsoever. Real estate property taxes are going up this year and have gone up every past year that I can remember. Yes, the property tax rate is going down. But the actual amount of tax dollars (i.e., “taxes”) being paid by each property owner will go up because of increases in assessments. Furthermore, the amount of tax dollars that the city will receive from real estate taxes will increase significantly. Consequently, I am quite baffled as to where you get the idea that the city “will lose” any money.
Unfortunately, you allow yourself to be co-opted by slick politicians who want to create the illusion that they have reduced taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently a column on your web site by Howard Kurtz titled, “Backlash on the Left” in which he describes how the mainstream media has kowtowed to the Bush administration by failing to publish hard hitting stories about their mistakes. You, too, seem to be part of this problem.
You fall into this same syndrome when you buy into the local politicians’ scams in which they pretend that they are lowering taxes when, in fact, they are clearly raising them. If there is any doubt in your mind about the reality of these tax increases, I will be quite glad to send you copies of my Alexandria real estate bills for the past twenty-seven years. Let me assure you that they have risen every single year.
I would suggest that a better opening for your story would have been, “The city of Alexandria is creating a new tax on cell phones in order to meet its insatiable thirst for tax revenue. The recent increase in real estate tax revenue has proved insufficient to cover all of the city’s spending plans and therefore still more tax money is needed.”
JBY
Thursday, June 09, 2005
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
A letter to the editor in the New York Times of Sunday, June 5, 2005, cogently summarized the thoughts of at least a few Americans. In its entirety, the letter, from Joseph Chianese of Oakland, California, stated:
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Under the present command, when anything goes well in the military, the president, Congress, the Defense Department and the generals fall over one another taking credit. But when something goes awry, they start another investigation and bust a private.
Perhaps recruiting will improve when the leadership does.
Unfair or at least overstated? Perhaps, but the fact is that no one at the top of the nation’s leadership structure has taken more than nominal responsibility or suffered any public consequences for the military, intelligence, and foreign policy mistakes and miscalls of the last few years. Indeed, the President has gone out of his way to praise some architects of the nation’s efforts, giving Medals of Freedom to George “Slam Dunk” Tenant, Paul “Chaos” Bremer, and Tommy “No Plan for the Aftermath” Franks.
Meanwhile, such proven-correct critics as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control Iraq, are ignored.
In this writer’s opinion, the President and his immediate associates are not guilty in a legal sense of dishonorable actions by lower ranking individuals carrying out national policy. Those at the top of the chain of command, however, do bear moral and political responsibility, a responsibility that they have not been men, and woman, enough to accept. Among their major mistakes are two that fall within those alluded to by the New York Times letter writer.
First was the decision to invade Iraq with forces inadequate to secure the country after the collapse of the regular Iraqi military. This decision resulted in U.S. forces being spread dangerously thin, which in turn reduced the supervision exercised over units and individual soldiers. The inadequate supervision has most likely been a major contributor to the unfortunate acts by a few members of the military and of the intelligence community.
The second mistake was the rather cavalier attitude expressed by the highest leadership toward the treatment of detainees. The President, backed by the Attorney General, said that the Geneva Convention did not apply. The Secretary of Defense apparently became directly involved in drawing up a list of permissible means of “persuasion.” The message this cavalier attitude conveyed to the lower echelons was not quite “anything goes,” but dangerously close to it.
What the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense and their immediate subordinates were guilty of is not comprehending the nature of military force. Often lost in the high-tone rhetoric of patriotism and in the idealistic commitment to freedom for all is the fact that military force is an extremely violent instrument of national policy. When the proverbial dogs of war are let loose, the overall national objective may be achieved, but the negative side effects and collateral damage can be extensive. To lessen these undesirable consequences, and to ensure that the national objectives are indeed achieved, the military objectives should be identified with precision, the military force committed should be at least adequate, and the nation’s adherence to humanitarian principles developed at great cost over a long period should not be compromised.
In short, what our national leadership has been guilty of in recent years is naiveté. The chief members of that leadership have portrayed themselves as hard-nosed realists. They are hard-nosed all right, but not realists. Their actions have shown a distinct lack of understanding of a fundamental component of national policy, that component being military force. They have shown that they don’t understand how military force should be employed, they don’t understand its limitations, and they don’t understand the passions released when men and women take up arms to do a difficult, nasty job.
DSH
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
TROUBLE IN PARADISE
There’s trouble in Paradise, Paradise being Alexandria, Virginia. How is Alexandria Paradise, you ask? Well, it must be. Why else would real estate values be so astronomical?
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Anyway, there’s trouble in Paradise, and Paradise is taking action. The trouble is, or are, mosquitoes. The action is to get rid of water. The theory is that mosquitoes need puddles of still water to perpetuate the species, and consequently eliminating puddles will eliminate the species, or at least enough of the species to make an evening stroll across the lawn bearable.
So city employees and various volunteers are on the prowl, looking for offending water.
Me, I’m skeptical. How do you eliminate water, except by drought? Oh sure, you can find the odd bit of wetness here and there. Water in a discarded tire can be extracted. (Although emptying an old tire is no easy matter; try it sometime.) A neighbor with a landscaped pond can be harassed.
But what about the thousand and one other gatherings of water? I’m under the impression—and all you amateur naturalists correct me if I’m wrong—that the amount of water it takes to breed mosquitoes is not much. Mere moisture might suffice. How about water cupped in a large leaf? In a depression in a tree stump? In a pile of decaying grass?
Moreover, what about rain gutters? Paradise is blessed with vast numbers of shade trees. Many arch over those astronomically priced homes. How often do we residents of Paradise, including the members of the mosquito patrol, clean our gutters? Maybe twice a year at the most. But those beautiful trees are dropping debris year round. Right now, probably a majority of the houses in Paradise have at least one stopped up gutter, and the artificial ponds thereby created are thriving with mosquito larva.
And don’t even get me started on the consequences of grass watering.
So I don’t have a lot of confidence that Paradise’s assault on mosquitoes will be successful. If you really want to get rid of mosquitoes, think back 30 or so years to the fogging trucks that dispensed poisons throughout residential areas. Of course, the poisons had their downside.
Now excuse me while I go fill my ornamental birdbath.
DSH
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
MILLIONAIRES
I live on a street of millionaires, or at least a lot of close-to-millionaires. So how do we millionaires spend our time? Cavorting, lawn parties, entertaining others of the leisure class?
Hardly. The younger ones go off in the morning to government offices, law firms, medical jobs, and the like; basic middle-class occupations. Some of us who are supposed to be retired—the cranky old guys—work for chump change. One teaches at a community college. Another turns out the lights at a local golf course. Still another is a low-level editor—a comma counter—with a government agency. All for chump change. The neighborhood poker group plays for nickels, dimes, and quarters: chump change.
So are we millionaire retirees working for chump change because we enjoy it? Yeah, right. The bottom line is that we need the chump change to bear to the cost of having outrageously priced property. That cost is called real estate taxes.
Decades ago we bought middle-class homes in a Washington, D.C., suburb. As the years went by, the prices others were willing to pay for these homes moved inexorably upwards, sometimes slowly, sometimes in disturbing bursts. On one hand, we felt good about feeling wealthier. On the other, the local government was not bashful about tapping that wealth. That was okay for those few whose income was on a decided upward track. For those of us not so fortunate, buying our rapidly appreciating property anew each year from the local government has taken an ever heftier share of our stagnate or only moderately increasing earnings.
And for some retirees, the yearly re-purchasing of their homes has become a real burden, eating into the funds set aside for those final years in the House of Drooling on Oneself.
As home prices began approaching the million dollar mark, the nature of the buyers began changing. Most of them are really good people. But most of them are also something the neighborhood did not have much of: Republicans. In fact, one of the cranky old guys—an unreconstructed Henry Howell-Keep the Big Boys Honest Democrat—began referring to the neighborhood as the neighborhood of Young Republican Starter Homes. He hypothesized that the newcomers would only be here a few years because they would soon want to join their own kind in places such as McLean and Belle Haven.
So is there a moral to this story? It’s certainly not easy to sympathize with property owners who have the option of cashing in their greatly appreciated properties and moving to cheaper locales. So what if they have to abandon their homes of many decades. The Ownership Society is not a free lunch. Perhaps the only moral is that being a millionaire is not what it used to be.
(P.S.: If you don’t know who Henry Howell was, you are either no Virginian or too young to be reading this.)
DSH
Hardly. The younger ones go off in the morning to government offices, law firms, medical jobs, and the like; basic middle-class occupations. Some of us who are supposed to be retired—the cranky old guys—work for chump change. One teaches at a community college. Another turns out the lights at a local golf course. Still another is a low-level editor—a comma counter—with a government agency. All for chump change. The neighborhood poker group plays for nickels, dimes, and quarters: chump change.
So are we millionaire retirees working for chump change because we enjoy it? Yeah, right. The bottom line is that we need the chump change to bear to the cost of having outrageously priced property. That cost is called real estate taxes.
Decades ago we bought middle-class homes in a Washington, D.C., suburb. As the years went by, the prices others were willing to pay for these homes moved inexorably upwards, sometimes slowly, sometimes in disturbing bursts. On one hand, we felt good about feeling wealthier. On the other, the local government was not bashful about tapping that wealth. That was okay for those few whose income was on a decided upward track. For those of us not so fortunate, buying our rapidly appreciating property anew each year from the local government has taken an ever heftier share of our stagnate or only moderately increasing earnings.
And for some retirees, the yearly re-purchasing of their homes has become a real burden, eating into the funds set aside for those final years in the House of Drooling on Oneself.
As home prices began approaching the million dollar mark, the nature of the buyers began changing. Most of them are really good people. But most of them are also something the neighborhood did not have much of: Republicans. In fact, one of the cranky old guys—an unreconstructed Henry Howell-Keep the Big Boys Honest Democrat—began referring to the neighborhood as the neighborhood of Young Republican Starter Homes. He hypothesized that the newcomers would only be here a few years because they would soon want to join their own kind in places such as McLean and Belle Haven.
So is there a moral to this story? It’s certainly not easy to sympathize with property owners who have the option of cashing in their greatly appreciated properties and moving to cheaper locales. So what if they have to abandon their homes of many decades. The Ownership Society is not a free lunch. Perhaps the only moral is that being a millionaire is not what it used to be.
(P.S.: If you don’t know who Henry Howell was, you are either no Virginian or too young to be reading this.)
DSH
Friday, May 06, 2005
SOCIAL SECURITY: TOO MUCH CHOICE ALREADY?
More choice is one argument being advanced by proponents of the Bush Administration’s plan to substitute some sort of investment account for a portion of an individual’s social security contributions and benefits. But my feeling, which admittedly is probably a minority view, is that the current social security system already has too much choice. Some things in life are improved by choice. Alternatives regarding, for example, food, vehicles, vacation destinations, TV channels, and beer are good choices.
But when it comes to many things monetary, choice makes my head hurt. Just give me one possibility. I might complain about it, but at least I don’t have to spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing other alternatives.
The choices in the current social security system involve when to start drawing benefits. The system is usually described in most government publications and by the majority of commentators as built around a full retirement age. For those born in 1937 or earlier, the full retirement age is 65. For those born during the period 1938 to1942, the full retirement age increases from just over 65 to just under 66. For us boomers born during the period 1943 to 1954, the full retirement age is 66. For yuppies born during the period 1955 to 1959, the full retirement age increases from just over 66 to just under 67. For those born in 1960 or later, well, it doesn’t really matter because the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Bushies have other plans for you.
Regardless of your full retirement age under the current system, you can elect to begin drawing benefits as early as age 62 if you are willing to accept lesser monthly compensation. The reduction in benefits, which is permanent, depends on how close to your full retirement age you are when you begin drawing benefits. The maximum reduction occurs if you retire immediately upon reaching age 62. For those born in 1943 or later, retirement at the stroke of 62 results in a 25 percent reduction from what you would have received if you had waited until full retirement age.
But the full retirement age concept is misleading because if you delay receiving benefits to sometime between your full retirement age and age 70, you get more. How much more depends on how long you wait. For those born in 1943 or later, the yearly increase between full retirement age and age 70 is 8 percent.
Let’s put this in concrete terms. Say you are a boomer—that is, born during the period 1943 to 1954—and say your benefit at the full retirement age of 66 would be $1,000 per month. Thus your benefit if you took early retirement at age 62 would be $750. Here is what delaying benefits would mean:
• Age 62: Monthly Benefit—$750.
• Age 63: Monthly Benefit—$800; 106% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 64: Monthly Benefit—$867; 116% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 65: Monthly Benefit—$933; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 66: Monthly Benefit—$1,000; 133% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 67: Monthly Benefit—$1,080; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 68: Monthly Benefit—$1,160; 154% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 69: Monthly Benefit—$1,240; 165% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 70: Monthly Benefit—$1,320; 176% of Age 62 Amount.
Thus if you delay benefits until age 70, you would receive almost double what you would receive at age 62. So instead of describing the current system as centered around a full retirement age, a better approach, at least for me, is to view the decision to receive benefits as a bet on when I’m going to croak. By delaying benefits, I would be betting that I’m going to have a viable existence into at least my late 70s. The increased benefits would make that existence more comfortable. By taking benefits early, I would be betting that I’m outta here early.
Does the concept of full retirement age have any real meaning? Yes, and a very important one. If you begin receiving benefits before full retirement age but continue working and receiving earnings, your benefits will reduced. The reduction is $1 for every $2 you make over a limit, which is $12,000 in 2005. In the year you reach full retirement age, the reduction is $1 for every $3 you make over a limit, which is $31,800 in 2005. The reduced benefits do result in increased benefits in later years to account for months you didn’t receive a benefit before reaching full retirement age. Once you reach full retirement age, social security benefits are not affected by other earnings.
The bottom line is that the current social security system requires me to bet on when I’m going to die. By proposing to add even more variables to the system, the Bush Administration apparently wants the members of the younger generation to spend even more time contemplating their demise than us boomers do. With all this attention devoted to death, when do we have time to enjoy the Culture of Life?
DSH
But when it comes to many things monetary, choice makes my head hurt. Just give me one possibility. I might complain about it, but at least I don’t have to spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing other alternatives.
The choices in the current social security system involve when to start drawing benefits. The system is usually described in most government publications and by the majority of commentators as built around a full retirement age. For those born in 1937 or earlier, the full retirement age is 65. For those born during the period 1938 to1942, the full retirement age increases from just over 65 to just under 66. For us boomers born during the period 1943 to 1954, the full retirement age is 66. For yuppies born during the period 1955 to 1959, the full retirement age increases from just over 66 to just under 67. For those born in 1960 or later, well, it doesn’t really matter because the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Bushies have other plans for you.
Regardless of your full retirement age under the current system, you can elect to begin drawing benefits as early as age 62 if you are willing to accept lesser monthly compensation. The reduction in benefits, which is permanent, depends on how close to your full retirement age you are when you begin drawing benefits. The maximum reduction occurs if you retire immediately upon reaching age 62. For those born in 1943 or later, retirement at the stroke of 62 results in a 25 percent reduction from what you would have received if you had waited until full retirement age.
But the full retirement age concept is misleading because if you delay receiving benefits to sometime between your full retirement age and age 70, you get more. How much more depends on how long you wait. For those born in 1943 or later, the yearly increase between full retirement age and age 70 is 8 percent.
Let’s put this in concrete terms. Say you are a boomer—that is, born during the period 1943 to 1954—and say your benefit at the full retirement age of 66 would be $1,000 per month. Thus your benefit if you took early retirement at age 62 would be $750. Here is what delaying benefits would mean:
• Age 62: Monthly Benefit—$750.
• Age 63: Monthly Benefit—$800; 106% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 64: Monthly Benefit—$867; 116% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 65: Monthly Benefit—$933; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 66: Monthly Benefit—$1,000; 133% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 67: Monthly Benefit—$1,080; 124% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 68: Monthly Benefit—$1,160; 154% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 69: Monthly Benefit—$1,240; 165% of Age 62 Amount.
• Age 70: Monthly Benefit—$1,320; 176% of Age 62 Amount.
Thus if you delay benefits until age 70, you would receive almost double what you would receive at age 62. So instead of describing the current system as centered around a full retirement age, a better approach, at least for me, is to view the decision to receive benefits as a bet on when I’m going to croak. By delaying benefits, I would be betting that I’m going to have a viable existence into at least my late 70s. The increased benefits would make that existence more comfortable. By taking benefits early, I would be betting that I’m outta here early.
Does the concept of full retirement age have any real meaning? Yes, and a very important one. If you begin receiving benefits before full retirement age but continue working and receiving earnings, your benefits will reduced. The reduction is $1 for every $2 you make over a limit, which is $12,000 in 2005. In the year you reach full retirement age, the reduction is $1 for every $3 you make over a limit, which is $31,800 in 2005. The reduced benefits do result in increased benefits in later years to account for months you didn’t receive a benefit before reaching full retirement age. Once you reach full retirement age, social security benefits are not affected by other earnings.
The bottom line is that the current social security system requires me to bet on when I’m going to die. By proposing to add even more variables to the system, the Bush Administration apparently wants the members of the younger generation to spend even more time contemplating their demise than us boomers do. With all this attention devoted to death, when do we have time to enjoy the Culture of Life?
DSH
Saturday, April 30, 2005
To: David Letterman Re: Paris Hilton
First, let me explain who I am. I’m a devotee of late night TV (defined as 11:30 pm to about 12 midnight, depending on the circumstances) who has long believed that you were, and are, the rightful successor to the much beloved Johnny Carson. The reasons for preferring you to Jay Leno are plentiful: you are far more witty and clever; you are much less willing to suck up to the politicians of the day; and above all, you can actually conduct an interesting and insightful interview with an intelligent guest.
But therein lies the biggest problem of your show. The quality of your guests has been on a downward spiral for many years.
Fortunately, the first 30 minutes of the show are devoted to banter with Paul and the audience, Top Ten lists, humorous video clips, the absolutely riveting “Will It Float” episodes as well as attention holding escapades in which strange objects are dropped from the top of tall buildings. Mostly sophomoric stuff, but it’s almost midnight and we welcome the silliness.
While silliness may be an acceptable condition at such an hour, guests who are totally devoid of talent, character, and intelligence cannot be tolerated at any hour of the day or night. What prompts this outburst of mine? Well, I’ve seen Paris Hilton (and other such cretins) on your show just one too many times.
Yes, occasionally you have a guest who is truly interesting to hear. They range from highly prominent politicians and major TV personalities to even a few movie stars who are interesting individuals. And, yes, I understand that the guests are there because Viacom is placing them on your show to promote other Viacom-owned businesses such as Paramount Pictures.
But I expect more from you, Dave. That wimpy Jay Leno would never stand up to a network executive and say, “Not on my show!” But you are a better person than that. You have shown on many occasions that you truly have some semblance of integrity. If you tell management that you are not going to stoop but so low, they will back down.
So come on, Dave. Stand up for your long term followers. Stand up for the integrity of your show. And above all, make Harry proud of his dad.
JBY
But therein lies the biggest problem of your show. The quality of your guests has been on a downward spiral for many years.
Fortunately, the first 30 minutes of the show are devoted to banter with Paul and the audience, Top Ten lists, humorous video clips, the absolutely riveting “Will It Float” episodes as well as attention holding escapades in which strange objects are dropped from the top of tall buildings. Mostly sophomoric stuff, but it’s almost midnight and we welcome the silliness.
While silliness may be an acceptable condition at such an hour, guests who are totally devoid of talent, character, and intelligence cannot be tolerated at any hour of the day or night. What prompts this outburst of mine? Well, I’ve seen Paris Hilton (and other such cretins) on your show just one too many times.
Yes, occasionally you have a guest who is truly interesting to hear. They range from highly prominent politicians and major TV personalities to even a few movie stars who are interesting individuals. And, yes, I understand that the guests are there because Viacom is placing them on your show to promote other Viacom-owned businesses such as Paramount Pictures.
But I expect more from you, Dave. That wimpy Jay Leno would never stand up to a network executive and say, “Not on my show!” But you are a better person than that. You have shown on many occasions that you truly have some semblance of integrity. If you tell management that you are not going to stoop but so low, they will back down.
So come on, Dave. Stand up for your long term followers. Stand up for the integrity of your show. And above all, make Harry proud of his dad.
JBY
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Bye to a Favorite Commercial
One of my favorite commercials has been taken off the air. It was the Levitra commercial. I usually saw it during dinner as I was watching the evening news. Having that gal grope, stroke, pat, caress, and otherwise fondle “My Man” as I was shoveling down food made for the perfect culinary experience. Not.
The news article describing the removal said in essence that the ad exaggerated the potency—my word—of the drug and did not warn of all the side effects. The side effects were not discussed in detail, but based on the ad there seems to be one that has long intrigued me. A New York Times columnist noted it a few months ago.
In the ad, “My Man” never says anything. He simply accepts all the attention with a goofy grin on his face. The NYT columnist hypothesized that the drug renders the taker mute. He may be a sex machine of the first order, but he has lost all ability to communicate verbally. Of course, the gal doesn’t seem to mind. To take a little liberty with the song, she’s as horny as Kansas in August. Anyway, she seems perfectly happy with a man who communicates only in the physical realm. Now, how real is that? And why wasn’t I so lucky back when it matter?
The placement of this ad and ones for similar products in the evening news programs of the major networks has puzzled me. For one thing, even assuming that the only group watching network evening news is composed of us graying boomers and our doddering parents, how many of us really want this in-your-face-reminder of nature’s inevitable progression? And just after we’ve seen the latest slaughter in the Middle East? Please, I’m trying to eat.
Also puzzling is why these ads have not attracted the wrath of social conservatives. Oh sure, there has been some grumbling. But can you imagine the outcry if birth control products were advertised in a similar manner? My theory is that the widespread need for the product trumps any qualms about the advertising. Plus, the social conservatives’ culture of life is not just about being pro-life and anti-death but also about not letting nature take its course. Nature tries to reduce the sexual appetite, but the culture of life crowd says: “No way. Give me whatever is necessary to make the equipment work. To keep me alive, ram a tube down my throat. To keep me sowing the seeds of righteousness, give me a pill.”
Anyway, it’s just a theory.
Advertising erectile dysfunction products on prime time TV presents an interesting quandary. On one hand, a government ban on such advertising would remove something about which most people are probably at best squeamish. On the other hand, a government ban itself is a cause for squeamishness. This is one of those situations in which you wish a few Madison Avenue advertising executives and drug company bigwigs could exercise a little restraint. I just want to watch the slaughters on the evening news in peace.
DSH
The news article describing the removal said in essence that the ad exaggerated the potency—my word—of the drug and did not warn of all the side effects. The side effects were not discussed in detail, but based on the ad there seems to be one that has long intrigued me. A New York Times columnist noted it a few months ago.
In the ad, “My Man” never says anything. He simply accepts all the attention with a goofy grin on his face. The NYT columnist hypothesized that the drug renders the taker mute. He may be a sex machine of the first order, but he has lost all ability to communicate verbally. Of course, the gal doesn’t seem to mind. To take a little liberty with the song, she’s as horny as Kansas in August. Anyway, she seems perfectly happy with a man who communicates only in the physical realm. Now, how real is that? And why wasn’t I so lucky back when it matter?
The placement of this ad and ones for similar products in the evening news programs of the major networks has puzzled me. For one thing, even assuming that the only group watching network evening news is composed of us graying boomers and our doddering parents, how many of us really want this in-your-face-reminder of nature’s inevitable progression? And just after we’ve seen the latest slaughter in the Middle East? Please, I’m trying to eat.
Also puzzling is why these ads have not attracted the wrath of social conservatives. Oh sure, there has been some grumbling. But can you imagine the outcry if birth control products were advertised in a similar manner? My theory is that the widespread need for the product trumps any qualms about the advertising. Plus, the social conservatives’ culture of life is not just about being pro-life and anti-death but also about not letting nature take its course. Nature tries to reduce the sexual appetite, but the culture of life crowd says: “No way. Give me whatever is necessary to make the equipment work. To keep me alive, ram a tube down my throat. To keep me sowing the seeds of righteousness, give me a pill.”
Anyway, it’s just a theory.
Advertising erectile dysfunction products on prime time TV presents an interesting quandary. On one hand, a government ban on such advertising would remove something about which most people are probably at best squeamish. On the other hand, a government ban itself is a cause for squeamishness. This is one of those situations in which you wish a few Madison Avenue advertising executives and drug company bigwigs could exercise a little restraint. I just want to watch the slaughters on the evening news in peace.
DSH
Friday, April 15, 2005
PRIVACY OF THE PRIVILEGED
At first blush, the opposition of Virginia state legislators from largely rural areas to automated cameras at traffic signals is perplexing. Why do they care? When at home, they have relatively few traffic signals to contend with, so the personal burden would not seem substantial. Moreover, their argument that the cameras are an invasion of privacy makes little sense. What is private about operating a motor vehicle on a public road? Only the most wild-eyed libertarians are opposed to government’s regulation of driving.
Recently our neighborhood poker group in a little corner of Alexandria considered the question, partly as a break from the depressing topic of property taxes. We came up with the following thought. What state legislators are really afraid of is the possible negative impact on their own privileged positions that might result from a spread of red light cameras.
State legislators have a notorious reputation as habitual violators of traffic laws. Many of them appear to believe that a pass on traffic violations is a perk of the job. And indeed, their work does involve much time on the road. Campaign events, meetings with constituents, attendance at legislative sessions, all entail substantial travel, usually in a vehicle with prominent license plates.
Local law enforcement officials have been known to treat legislators as a privileged group, according them considerable slack. When the big shiny car with those prominent license plates runs a red light, the conversation can go something like this:
“Senator, didn’t you see that red light?”
“I thought I had a yellow. Guess I was a little preoccupied. How’s the wife and kids, anyway?”
“Oh, they’re doing fine, thank you Senator. You need to be a bit more careful. I’ll just give you a warning this time, but please, take it easy.”
“I will, I truly will. And be sure to vote for me come November.”
“You can count on it. And Senator, I know that you boys in the Legislature say it’s okay to drive with an open can of beer, but it’s really not a good idea.”
“Ha, Ha, you’re right Officer. I won’t open another.”
In the unlikely event that a ticket is issued, a phone call to his or her buddy, the local judge, usually suffices:
“Charlie, Howya doin’? How’s Florrie and the kids?”
“Oh, they’re doing good, Roy. How’s Betty Sue?”
“She’s good, real good. Look Charlie, I’ve got this darn ticket for runnin’ that red light over by the feed store. I’m supposed to be in your court next week but I need to be up in Richmond. Anything we can do ‘bout this?”
“I guess we might. Don’t worry about it. But you should be more careful, Roy. This is the third time this year, right?”
“Yeah, I know, Charlie. And I will. You got my word. Give my regards to Florrie.”
“Will do, Roy. And you give my regards to Betty Sue.”
The impersonal automated camera sharply curtails the legislator’s ability to talk his or her way out of a ticket. The legislator no longer enjoys a privileged position. The camera is not a forgiving constituent or a sympathetic fellow member of the local power structure. Instead, an unforgiving, unmovable, inanimate object is now the authority, an authority that gives the big shiny car with the prominent license plates no respect. In other words, the legislator has lost power and privilege, and that hurts. Yes, cameras at traffic signals are indeed an invasion of privacy: the privacy of the privileged.
DSH
Recently our neighborhood poker group in a little corner of Alexandria considered the question, partly as a break from the depressing topic of property taxes. We came up with the following thought. What state legislators are really afraid of is the possible negative impact on their own privileged positions that might result from a spread of red light cameras.
State legislators have a notorious reputation as habitual violators of traffic laws. Many of them appear to believe that a pass on traffic violations is a perk of the job. And indeed, their work does involve much time on the road. Campaign events, meetings with constituents, attendance at legislative sessions, all entail substantial travel, usually in a vehicle with prominent license plates.
Local law enforcement officials have been known to treat legislators as a privileged group, according them considerable slack. When the big shiny car with those prominent license plates runs a red light, the conversation can go something like this:
“Senator, didn’t you see that red light?”
“I thought I had a yellow. Guess I was a little preoccupied. How’s the wife and kids, anyway?”
“Oh, they’re doing fine, thank you Senator. You need to be a bit more careful. I’ll just give you a warning this time, but please, take it easy.”
“I will, I truly will. And be sure to vote for me come November.”
“You can count on it. And Senator, I know that you boys in the Legislature say it’s okay to drive with an open can of beer, but it’s really not a good idea.”
“Ha, Ha, you’re right Officer. I won’t open another.”
In the unlikely event that a ticket is issued, a phone call to his or her buddy, the local judge, usually suffices:
“Charlie, Howya doin’? How’s Florrie and the kids?”
“Oh, they’re doing good, Roy. How’s Betty Sue?”
“She’s good, real good. Look Charlie, I’ve got this darn ticket for runnin’ that red light over by the feed store. I’m supposed to be in your court next week but I need to be up in Richmond. Anything we can do ‘bout this?”
“I guess we might. Don’t worry about it. But you should be more careful, Roy. This is the third time this year, right?”
“Yeah, I know, Charlie. And I will. You got my word. Give my regards to Florrie.”
“Will do, Roy. And you give my regards to Betty Sue.”
The impersonal automated camera sharply curtails the legislator’s ability to talk his or her way out of a ticket. The legislator no longer enjoys a privileged position. The camera is not a forgiving constituent or a sympathetic fellow member of the local power structure. Instead, an unforgiving, unmovable, inanimate object is now the authority, an authority that gives the big shiny car with the prominent license plates no respect. In other words, the legislator has lost power and privilege, and that hurts. Yes, cameras at traffic signals are indeed an invasion of privacy: the privacy of the privileged.
DSH
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A Modest Proposal for Solving the Critical Shortage of Certain Professionals
Several years ago Jay Mathews, a reporter for The Washington Post who covers education, developed a simplistic and highly questionable method of ranking high schools. His idea was to take the total number of students in a school and divide it by the number of Advance Placement courses taken by the students in the school. The quality of the students’work was of no importance; only quantity counted.
Not surprisingly, this easily computed statistic has been an enormous hit with school administrators. Their only goal is to figure out a way to entice more bodies into AP courses. And any way of doing so is pretty much acceptable. The desired result is simply to make the score on the Mathews scale - which he calls the Challenge Index - go up. As stated before, the grades that students receive in the classes or the scores they receive on the AP exams are irrelevant.
Recently, Patrick Welsh (an English teaches at T.C. Williams High School) challenged this system of rating high schools and pointed out that it has little relevance to classroom teachers who deal with students of greatly varying levels of academic ability [see The Washington Post, April 10, 2005; page B3]. Yes, it is highly popular with administrators who love to generate whatever public relations spin that they can manufacture. But, no, it really does not improve the overall academic performance of students who are either unmotivated to perform well or who do not have strong academic ability.
What we really have is yet another system for declaring by fiat that every child is a genius. Let’s place every child in every AP course and dull children will suddenly become inspired and start to excel at quantum physics and write insightful analyses of Ulysses. Why didn’t we think of this sooner?
In reality, of course, the content of these classes will be substantially lowered. Because if they are not lowered, a sizable number of students will fail. Mathews’ scheme is just the same old ploy to eliminate any and all semblances of grouping students by ability, because in the sacred scriptures of all professional educators there is absolutely no such thing as differing abilities among students. We can all be rocket scientists if we just fill out the right application form.
This line of logic leads me to a fantastic insight for solving such crises as shortages of doctors and computer engineers. The only thing that we need to do is to triple the enrollment in schools of medicine and engineering. And why are we having trouble doing so at present? Well, we maintain this silly system of requiring that certain “standards” be met before admission is granted to these professional schools. But these standards are not a part of the Mathews Challenge Index system. You just simply put a bunch of warm bodies into medical school and engineering school and, voila, we’ll have solved the shortage problem.
Just one question for Mr. Mathews: Would you allow me to select one of these new graduates from medical school to perform your next by-pass surgery?
JBY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)