Actions vs. Intentions

This conversation grew out of a story writing and editing session I had. I was trying (politely, of course) explain that the ending this person had selected for her character was boring because his salvation/resolution came from outside--the ever-dreaded deus ex machina. What I was trying to explain, as patiently as possible, was that her character had to earn his salvation. Finally, I tried another example. I said, "Look, let's say you had a million dollars in your estate, and you wanted to give it to your kid."

Horrified, she said, "I wouldn't do that!"

I asked, "Would you just give it to them when they turned 18, or would you make them earn it?"

"Earn it!" she said firmly. Then she added, "I don't think I'd even tell them I had it. I wouldn't want them to be spoiled."

"Great," I said, and then related the example back to her character and why an unearned reward did nothing for him. The discussion of earning vs. rewards continued, and we meandered into politics, partly because she had a utopia she wanted to include in her story.

"I'm very concerned about social justice lately," she said. "I just saw the Michael Moore movie, Capitalism: A Love Story." Rolling my eyes, I let her continue. "I don't think capitalism works."

There after followed a five-minute explanation of her feelings regarding the homeless, how they needed "dignity" and shouldn't be thrown out on the street. "They should have the basics: food, shelter, dignity." Dignity was a big thing with her. But she didn't want to talk or think about "rich or poor" or where the money would come from--you know: the actual cost of feeding the welfare state. She just wanted people to have enough money or possessions at the end of life to have dignity. This was the same person who didn't want to tell her own child that she had a million bucks, but she was willing to do whatever it took for social justice to prevail. I didn't have time to ask her these questions, but I couldn't help wondering afterward:

• If fictional characters or your own kids learn and value something earned more than something given to them, why wouldn't the total strangers you want to supply with "dignity?"
• If you wouldn't give your own kid $1M without them earning it (if then), why would you expect rich strangers in this country to give other total strangers enough money to have "dignity" at the end of their lives?
• How much should "dignity" cost, anyway?
• If you're so protective of your theoretical million dollars, why are "the rich" or "big businesses" greedy and evil for being the same way?
• Has it occurred to you that religion--which is increasingly being driven out of the public sphere--once drove the rich and poor alike to engage in private charitable giving before the government started taking more and more for the welfare and doing the giving for them?

I did ask her this: "If people get more satisfaction from earning and earning comes mostly from (private-sector) jobs, why shouldn't entrepreneurs and businesses be allowed to keep more of their money so they can hire more people?"

"They need to pay more taxes to pay for the social safety net."

I said, "They are, and so am I. The president thinks the way you do, and is raising taxes. As a result, businesses don't have as much money to hire more people. That's why unemployment is nearly 10 percent."

She shook her head in disbelief. "I don't think so. They're just cutting jobs to raise profits."

Great googily moogily! How do you argue with someone who has swallowed anti-economic thinking whole? Does she not understand that money that could have been spent on creating more goods and services (and thus jobs) is now diverted to unproductive activities like taxes and lawyers to cover their butts in the face of new regulations? Obviously not.

This is not just a gap in philosophy, it's a gap in fundamental knowledge, possibly willful, possibly not, but it illustrates dramatically why the political classes and the people they purport to represent are increasingly talking past each other. Wow. There's some real food for thought.

Space As a Remedy for Solving Society's Problems

I have a long answer and a short answer to a posting I read on Facebook. Rather than go over-long there, I have decided to post the answer here. Here's what one FB fan wrote about funding the space program:

you rocket scientists need to come up with a way to address the world's social problems upfront and center for good, and then you won't have to see technology competing with social Idiocracy beyond your control.

Sorry, after living in So Cal for the past decade, I see social decay that is hard to ignore, so I don't understand, if we can't even design a system to solve our own deep social problems on Earth (i.e. the concept of non-conditioned/created 'enemies') first, what business do we have hypothesizing spreading of the still nuclear-war rigged human condition elsewhere?

First, let's translate this into the real, most-often-asked question of space advocates: "Why should we spend all that money on space when there are so many more important things to be done here on Earth?" The specific variant the poster asked was, "Why can't the space program be used to solve social problems here on Earth?" The short answer is: it can't, but that's not why it's there.

Hereafter follows the long answer.

Let's start with the concept of "more important." That is, of course, a value judgment. One might ask, "What is more important, understanding better how the universe functions or having enough to eat?" Now the Earth-firsters will think that having enough to eat is the no-brainer "right" answer.

Investments in New Knowledge and Technology Always Pay Off
But consider: if some part of this nation is engaged in fundamental research about the way, say, the Earth's ecosystem works, they could find new, more efficient, more productive, less harmful ways to use land or grow crops. Such second-hand effects, typically called spinoffs, inevitably lead to new knowledge that allows other segments of society to benefit. The process runs as follows:

Learn about the Earth ==> Use the land better ==> Grow more food ==> Food becomes cheaper ==> Fewer starving people

Is this a direct path? No. But it is a concrete, real-world explanation of how investments in space can help reduce social problems like hunger.

Why Investments in Technology Have an Advantage Over Direct Aid
The next argument from the previous discussion would be: "Why not spend that money directly on the poor and hungry here on Earth and eliminate all those intermediate steps?"

Let's start with the federal budget...we'll use 2008, a budget which has already passed. This relatively modest budget (compared to the $3.7 trillion for '09) included $17.3 billion for NASA. The budget for unemployment payments, welfare, and other direct transfers of wealth (entitlements) was $324 billion. That means that welfare spending is nearly 19 times as much as what is spent on government-funded civilian space activities. If you don't like that example, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as of 2007, had cost the taxpayers $368 billion--21 times NASA's budget--and that doesn't even include the regular Department of Defense budget, which was another $481 billion, or nearly 28 times NASA's budget. Throw in Medicare and Medicaid totaled up to $1.2 trillion for 2008, and you get over 69 times the NASA budget. "All that money on space?" Really, now.

But let's return to the social welfare example, which addresses the questioner's original concern--aid to the poor, social welfare, and direct aid to people in need of some sort. At $324 billion a year, the government spent over $887 million a day in direct welfare payments. That means, if you zeroed out NASA's budget and turned all those funds over to welfare, you'd help feed those folks for 19 days. So, great: you've fed folks at a slightly higher level for just under three weeks. What opportunity costs have you given up by spending that way?

Spending NASA's budget directly on welfare doesn't make sense, in part because that money is not doing much more than being consumed in the form of food, shelter, and clothing, and once consumed is gone. Now consider the opportunity costs you missed out on by not spending that $17.3 billion on space technology. You miss out on:

• The new satellite(s), which bring you the data that teaches you about the environment.
• The new technologies built into the satellite, such as new cameras, sensors, and electronics, all of which advance the state of the art and can be used for applications here on Earth.
• The jobs created by building the hardware, infrastructure, and research that led to increased scientific knowledge and better farm productivity, which led to better living standards for everyone, not just the poor individual receiving a check. And note that not all of these jobs are of the "rocket scientist" (aerospace engineer) or environmental scientist variety. There are white-collar workers, such as logisticians, accountants, and administrative assistants, who are employed by NASA and the companies supporting the programs. Blue-collar workers are hired to build the launch towers and rockets, drive the trucks that transport raw materials and hardware, and yes, clean the offices and maintain the grounds of the various facilities needed to support the space program. A job is a social program because the person having one usually does not need to receive welfare. They're a taxpayer.

The Specific Advantage of Space Hardware Over Earth-Based Investments
The next argument is likely to be, "Why not spend money on Earth-based technologies (e.g. an improved plow, better crop technologies, etc.) instead of going off into space?" That is being done, both by government and the private sector. However, research into space technologies is unique because space itself is such a unique and challenging environment in which to work.

Human beings have been living on this Earth for thousands of years. All in all, it's safe to say that this world is a known quantity, and there are things we take for granted, like our gravity, atmosphere, range of temperatures, and plant and animal life. Orbital space and the planets, asteroids, and comets all have extreme environments completely outside regular human experience: no atmosphere, too much atmosphere, zero gravity, microgravity, massive gravity, poisonous chemicals and solids in the air and on the surface, temperatures ranging from nearly Earthlike to beyond boiling to so far below that it's nearly "absolute zero." Any time we send spacecraft or people to these places, and so far we've only gone as far as the Moon, we must build high-performance machines that must accelerate out of our gravity well and then function perfectly in those extreme environments, thousands or millions or billions of miles away. And once the machines or people arrive at their destination, they must gather more information using whatever instruments have been brought with them--and all those instruments have to function perfectly, or nearly so, or millions/billions of dollars have been lost.

The challenges of all this work have been immense, and it has been NASA that has given Americans justifiable bragging rights having sent the first machines to the outer solar system and the first men to the Moon, as well as having built telescopes that have seen billions of light-years away. Space exploration has greatly increased our technological capabilities here on Earth because it has required us to build machines we would never have thought of or needed here on our relatively safe mother planet. It is only by building machines capable of surviving in space that we have lucked upon spinoffs and new uses for them here on Earth--a process philosophy writer and teacher Gonzalo Munevar calls the principle of serendipity. The principle is simple enough to understand: if we hadn't gone into space in the first place, we would never have created the spinoffs that made our lives better once we turned that technology back toward addressing problems here on Earth.

Overcoming Ignorance--The Value of Space Exploration to Education
NASA's primary job is not to educate the public, though the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which created the agency in 1958, authorized NASA to engage in partnerships with educational institutions to accomplish its mission. It also provides educational outreach opportunities by sharing information about its hardware and discoveries with students, teachers, the media, and the general public.

While I must admit that it gets to sound corny after awhile, NASA really does inspire kids to study difficult subjects. While I was too young to witness it firsthand, Apollo 11 inspired me to want to write for NASA. Others have gotten interested in studying math or science. The process works this way:

The nation invests in space exploration ==> NASA's space probes or astronauts do incredible things ==> kids watch and get inspired ==> kids study and learn ==> kids get older, get advanced degrees, and get jobs [if not at NASA, then in some technical field that gives them satisfaction] ==> the next generation goes on to inspiring, difficult things

Again, it's not a straight path from spending on space exploration to solving social ills, but the importance of inspiration in education cannot be overlooked. With inspiration comes hope, a desire to improve, and a future productive citizen. An inspired, motivated, hard-working kid with dreams and goals is not going to turn to drugs and gangs to find fulfillment because they've got something more important and more rewarding to do.

The Rising Tide
And what about the future, and the problems it poses to adult citizens today? We hear a lot about resource crunches, increased pollution, and increased tension in world politics because we're fighting over one small planet. It doesn't have to be that way.

Our solar system is rich in energy--from space solar power to the untapped potential of helium-3 fusion--and metallic resources from the lunar crust, asteroids, and comets. We don't yet know how to tap these resources, but we owe it to ourselves to try and learn how, if only to ensure a better future for all of us--Americans and non, friends and enemies. If we successfully develop space-based forms of energy, enough energy to prevent another Gulf War or two, that certainly has to be worth 19 days' worth of welfare payments.

So, again, to answer the question of whether space exploration can be used to solve society's problems, the answer is, no, it can't, but it can address societal problems along the way. It all depends on how we choose to define what a "societal problem" is, and what it's worth to seek for new knowledge and better solutions to fix them.

Bart Leahy is a technical writer living in Huntsville, Alabama.

Response to a Reader Re: the Economy

My compliments to Rolando for a thorough and thoughtful response to my posting. My responses follow. I do not guarantee that they will satisfy, but they are an accurate reflection of my views.

Do you understand inertia? Obama has ONLY been in office 1 month. If you were trying to stop a speeding car it would take time to slow it down, and vice-versa.

Okay, I did correct myself later on and ask “At what point can the voters make him accept responsibility?” I got weary of the Bush-bashing for 8 years, which started from the moment he was finally declared to be president (“selected, not elected”) until the day he was booed on Obama’s inauguration day. However, as I note elsewhere, Obama is now saying and doing things that are actively making things worse. That’s why he’s got to take some ownership.

The RIGHT "incentives" make the economy better. The RIGHT "reduction in regulation" and the RIGHT "tax-cuts" help make the economy better. Giving tax-cuts to companies who outsource the work, does not "maximize the opportunity of [American] citizens". It does not create jobs.

No, see, this is one of those fundamental differences between believers in government intervention and those who mistrust it. There are always people in government who think they can do things better if only THEY were put in charge. Capitalist economies work best when government allows the "invisible hand" of the market to do its job, or if it “is performing basic research (e.g. in NASA labs and at universities), being an early adopter of new capabilities (e.g. airmail service), building infrastructure (e.g. roads, seaports, launch facilities), and regulating health, safety, and consumer protection.” (See Eligar Sadeh’s Space Politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations)

Government starts getting bigger, more intrusive, and less effective when they try to pick favorites in the marketplace. Ronald Reagan crystallized the problem well: “If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.” This is the general cycle of government intervention in the market. A great example is transportation: government went crazy helping canal companies, giving them all sorts of perks and benefits and special incentives to build, operate, or expand canals. Then canals got supplanted by railroads, and government had to subsidize canals until they died out because they couldn’t compete. Railroads went through a similar cycle until the arrival of airplanes and trucks on the interstate highway system. And now airlines are on the verge of being subsidized—with nothing to replace them, incidentally.

And for the record, I would not support cutting regulations that allow more fraud; however, I would support cutting regulations that make business unnecessarily expensive, like EPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, or ADA. Companies can do these things if they choose and are found to be effective and create goodwill with their customers, but sending in a bunch of auditors and examiners to intrude on the operation of a business expands the power of the government with very little good shown to the public.

As for the “right” tax cuts, the only entities who truly pay taxes are individuals. Businesses don’t pay taxes, in the pure sense—they pass on their tax burdens to the customers, who, at the end of the day, are people. So raising taxes on businesses hurts individuals, not businesses, except to the extent that they have to raise prices on their customers to pay for higher taxes. The only "fair" thing left to do is cut individual rates across the board and let those who are able to benefit, do so.

Also, as I’ve noted in other postings, nearly half of the working public doesn’t even pay income taxes—they get a full refund at the end of the year via the Earned Income Tax Credit or other handout programs. And because the U.S. has a “progressive” tax system, that means that the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. So one might play the class-warfare game all day, but the very nature of our economy and tax system is such that only “the other half” truly benefits from a tax cut.

One thing that many people who lean conservative don't seem to understand is that the American Market is not very lucrative for investment. We are too expensive in comparison to other countries such as China and India. They are just as just as bright as we are and they are a fraction of the price. If my goal was to maximize profit, I would not hire Americans. I'd sell to them, but I wouldn't hire them. Now I am an American, so MY thoughts are for Americans -- but hardcore business executives are ruthless AND the best strategy when pursuing MONEY is to hire outside of America. Hence, tax cuts for very large organizations is not necessarily good for Americans because when these business people invest they won't invest in America.

I actually have no problem with a general, low tariff on American goods, matched by a tax cut for American citizens. That protects American jobs and keeps more people off the welfare rolls. Of course there is the risk of other nations putting up protective tariffs as well. There are ways to lower American labor costs, but they require doing things like breaking the power of unions and reducing the number of government-mandated costs, like FICA, OSHA, EPA, etc. (see above).

I agree (to an extent). I think that providing people with benefits is important to prevent these people from making the mortgage problem worst, but I agree it motivates people to not work. That is why if I were setting the rules I would require these people to do a minimum of 10-15 hrs of volunteer work per week. This way, the people have enough time to find a job and they are giving back to the community in a positive manner.

Fine by me.

Company bailouts makes me cringe. These company CEOs are either incompitent or highly dishonest -- both possibilities upset me. However, if these companies go down - then many people will lose their jobs -- and it isn't an isolated event -- there is a domino effect. I hate it -- Do you have a better approach? -- I would bailout these companies, but arrest the upper management -- have them help fix their mess in prison. Unfortunately, these people have ALL the politicians in their pocket books -- this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue -- they are both corrupted.

A few firms fail in every recession, and people go on to look for jobs at companies that aren’t incompetent. The unemployment rate was about 6.1% at its worst in the ’01-’03 recession and a shade under 8% in the ’91-’93 recession, and neither event prodded the government to go bonkers with spending, intervention, and the rest—and the economy recovered. Bottom line on this: capitalism is a competitive environment, and guaranteeing employment has never been part of the American social contract.

As far as arresting corporate officials, if they’ve committed crimes, fine. Arrest them. If, however, the things they’ve done are legal under the system as currently described, then they go free.

I don't think helping people who were mislead by predatory lenders is wrong. I think it is a very good and proactive idea. It is either this, or you let them foreclose and we pay for it through another method -- by bailing out the banks again :).

I cringe when I hear things like “predatory lending practices.” If you know you can’t afford something, like a house, you have an obligation to yourself and your family to look seriously at your financial standing before making a huge purchase on credit—especially one where the lender tells you that the rate is subject to change as interest rates fluctuate. That’s like going to a loan shark and expecting leniency. This latest crisis, however, has soured me on real estate as an “investment,” possibly forever. We had a financial crisis in the late ‘80s when the congress made a bunch of tweaks and changes to the tax code (wanting to get the RIGHT incentives passed, you see), like reducing the mortgage deduction. A bunch of people started bailing out of their homes, savings and loan institutions went under, and BAM! $190 billion went up in smoke…history repeats.

Now here is where I need your intellect to get a better understanding of things from conservatives. Now you don't talk about the positive things that Obama is "spending" on like Education, Green Technology, Infrastructure and Lowering Health Care Cost. All these efforts, if done correctly, provide jobs now AND make us more competitive tomorrow. Now how can this be bad? I really want to know what the grievance with these type of "investments" from the conservative side. I mean the "teaching someone to fish" is at the very core of conservative beliefs (I know I was brought conservative and I am an independent not a democrat) -- why then is investing in education labeled as "spending"? -- I simply don't understand. Why is investing in new industries like "Green Technology" labeled as "spending" when it is known that we are running out of oil reserves? It creates jobs NOW and it is an investment for the future. Why is investing in the Health Care technological infrastructure in order to Lower Health Care Cost considered spending? It lowers long term costs and it creates jobs NOW. (Now I think that there is support for this on both sides -- so I might be misspeaking.) -- However, to play the devil's advocate the conservatives are going to try and deregulate the Health care industry in the name of "competition" (being advised by people in the health insurance industry -- of course) and the only thing that is going to happen is health care costs is going to increase. Now to be fair I am certain that the Democrats will F'it up too, but I think that their approach will be more conscientious -- so I expect it to be slightly better -- I hope. Now I agree that some of the things that are on the bill are wasteful -- That is politics -- you work at NASA so you should understand politics. However, the PLAN in general is not bad. The litmus test is for stimulus items is 1) Does it create jobs now? 2) Does it create more opportunities or lower long-term costs? If both these things are yes, then it is a good stimulus item. If it does not it is pork.

As I noted above, government does some things well, like fighting wars, maintaining law & order, building infrastructure, and funding basic research. Where it gets into trouble is in trying to do things that individuals or businesses have proven time and again they do better themselves, like insurance, education, performing applied research, space exploration, and running businesses.

My gripes with “investments” (subsidies) targeted to specific applied technologies is that it amounts to corporate welfare and picking winners and losers. The Obama administration is so convinced that “green” technologies are the way to go that they are willing to regulate existing industries out of existence like coal and nuclear fission and neglecting options like improved fission reactors, space-based solar power or helium-3 fusion.

I have friends who tell me they are perfectly happy to pay more taxes if it means that everyone gets “free” medical coverage. Yet it never escapes my attention that when rich or powerful people need a critical operation, they come here, they don’t go to Britain, France, or Canada, the primary exemplars of socialized medicine. Why? Because they can get the procedure right away, and they value the quality of care. That system has been built capitalistically, not socialistically, and the horror stories of waiting lists and rationing are legion. I do agree with one of the friends I’ve talked to about this (Doc, a regular reader): scientific, factual studies of waiting lists and quality-of-care issues need to be done, here and abroad. As far as I can tell, much of this war has been fought anecdotally. However, until I’ve gotten serious evidence of the benefits of government-funded and run health care, I’m dubious about the proposition.

There’s also this: government is not going to have plans as good as private ones. Taxpayers simply can’t afford for everyone to have a “Med-90” plan (the 90% coverage plan I used to have with Disney), which of course is what everyone would want. You could use the same argument with unemployment or welfare insurance: if the government ensured that everyone made at least $100,000 a year, who’s going to pay for all that, and if it was affordable, why would people ever work again? And with more government intervention in the medical process, you would end up trading one set of constraints with another: instead of money being the deciding factor in some medical decision, it could come down to a legal or political decision. We already have too many lawyers involved in medical decisions, and congress is made up mostly of lawyers.

I’ve been told that “pork is in the eye of the beholder.” Science and space spending tend to fall under this definition. I would say, however, that basic research and exploration are valid function of the American government, and have been since at least 1804. Once the basic research work is done by NACA/NASA, it should be transferred to the private sector, where competition, innovation, and economies of scale can be better brought to bear. Also, basic research—understanding the properties of the physical universe—has become a basic function of government since the decline in private foundations and the increase of government-funded research after World War II. Private-sector companies might or might not participate in basic research, but the understanding should be that basic facts about the universe should be known and free to all. What individuals choose to do with those facts once they’re known is the job of the private sector. This is not some whacko conservative notion, it’s in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

In other words, the U.S. Government has as part of its basic operating instructions to protect patents and copyrights for applied research, inventions, and ideas. It doesn’t say anywhere that the government is required to or responsible for paying for those inventions or ideas.

And I think you're wrong about your "litmus test." The ultimate test of a stimulus should be how much private sector activity is generated, not government activity. Jobs can always be found, but the private sector has always been more lucrative in this country. If a "stimulus" creates a bigger, more expensive government, more people beholden to the government for their livelihood, more long-term debt, more taxes down the road, and more intrusion into people's private or financial lives, the cost is too high.

Sorry this is so long, and I probably didn't answer all your comments, but I addressed as many as I could. I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for reading.

Redistribution and Taxation in America

The Tax Foundation recently summarized a report by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report points out that the U.S. has the most "progressive" tax systems in the economically developed world. Progressive taxation is simply defined as the more you make, the more you pay. The left in this country often admires the social welfare states of Europe as models for America.

Why, then, is the left not satisfied if America taxes its rich people more than Europe? Is it because our unemployment rate is lower than France? Germany? the EU overall? Is it because, despite our government having the largest budget of any nation on Earth, one that exceeds the record profits ExxonMobil made by more than 200 times, it still isn't big enough? Is it because we are not as politically correct, or that our electorate is center-right instead of center-left or far left? Is it because our government's level of social and economic control isn't enough? One can only wonder.

I happen to like capitalism--not unfettered, not utterly unregulated, but not owned or controlled by the government. Governments exist to spread resources more or less equally to soothe a restless populace. Capitalism exists to allow individuals to compete and produce new goods and services at the lowest costs and highest profits possible. Simple supply and demand determine what those costs and profits will be. In the realm of government, costs and profits can be and are regulated, not according to supply and demand, but according a nebulous definition of fairness, with that definition changing constantly, depending on the political priorities of the ruling party. When government gets too involved in capitalism, you end up with crony capitalism, as happened at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Once government starts trying to pick winners and losers, either through political favors or "fairness," it inevitably becomes less "fair," more expensive, and much more intrusive.

What bothers me about the two presidential candidates (Obama more directly than McCain, but McCain is just as willing to interfere with the market) is that neither of them has my full confidence that they will restore some sense of rationality, independence, or competition to the market. Everything is becoming "too big to be allowed to fail," from banks to insurance companies to car makers and airlines, so government "must" step in to "save" these businesses. This salvation comes in the form of a government bailout, which must be paid for somehow out of the public treasury, which in turn must come from the taxpayers.

If businesses fail due to bad management and the government partially bails them out, their employees become unemployed, and they might or might not find jobs. The unemployed who remain unemployed do not pay taxes and collect unemployment insurance from the government, becoming a double "cost" to the government. So then one must ask: where is all the money supposed to come from to save future businesses and all the other stuff the two candidates want to do?

It has been suggested to me that we could cut the military. Swell. As long as we go bipartisan on this issue and start cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Or maybe cut the Department of Education, which spends more and more for worse and worse results. Or we could be seriously suicidal with our nation's future and cut federal infrastructure spending--roads, basic science research, and space.

Another suggestion I've heard is to cut the capital gains and corporate tax rates--America has some of the highest tax rates in those two categories, too. Might as well try it at this point; if the Fed lowers the interest rate any more, they're going to start reaching negative numbers. And I love it when I hear that "tax cuts for the rich" line. Having already established that we tax the rich more than anybody and (in a previous posting) that 50% or more of the American public invests in the stock market, why should the American people be offended by efforts to help businesses? Where do they think the value of their pension funds or 401(k)s was coming from? If the health of businesses improves due to tax cuts, and millions of Americans' retirement accounts immediately increase in value, that's not just "trickle down" economics--that's a direct benefit to 50% of the American public!

Never mind. I can just wait for Obama to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, sink the economy further, and watch the government take over even more of the private sector so I can wearily say, "I told you so." But don't think I'll do it with any sort of pleasure. It's my country, too.