How Come The Poor Are So Poor?

Fareed Zakaria, an opinion writer in the Washington Post this morning has an editorial about the lack of upward mobility in this country as compared with Canada and most European countries. The most important statement in the editorial was a quote that said "The ZIP code you're born in shouldn't determine your destiny, but too often it does". He also points out that, surprisingly, our welfare state spends very little on the poor - who don't vote very much - lavishing attention on the middle class". Do you agree with that? I mean, just listen to politicians grumble about the professional poor.
They're just lazy. Living on the government. The thing is, all the poor I know, which is only a few, I admit, are hard working people who just can't seem to get a break. I guess I don't know the right poor. But the point is that the poor stay poor, the middle class stay there and the rich still stay there, for the most part. So if that's true, then how come? Well, experts say it has to do with lack of good nutrition, good health care and good education. It seems we're not doing so well in these areas. See, if a rich child needs extra help, they can hire legions of tutors, if a middle class youth needs extra help, the family scrapes together the money to hire a tutor, but if a poor child need extra help, ???. Not only that, but rich folks can afford to send their children to exclusive private schools. Middle class families live in middle class towns and neighborhoods where they have the best equipped public schools and best teachers. But in the poor neighborhoods, the tax base doesn't allow for the best of anything. In fact for the most part, try as those districts do, they can only afford the bare minimum. The problem with that is that you wind up with a welfare state or a large criminal element or more likely, both. That is expensive for the rest of society. It would be cheaper in the long run, to provide the excellence in all categories that the rest of society has become accustomed to. Now I haven't joked around in this entry, but that's because it ain't very funny.

My Poll Is Better Than Your Poll.

I keep hearing in the polls that 75% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Okay, I can buy that. But just what direction are they talking about. Is it that there is more polarization in American politics than at any time in many decades? Because I agree with that. Is it possible that  people feel our foreign policy is wrong? Because it looks to me like that's the one bright spot. Maybe it's our financial industry that seems to have screwed up the country while profiting immensely. To go with that we have done so little to place strong checks and balances on banks that are too large to fail and even banks that aren't too big to fail. Likely folks are mad we haven't been successful at creating jobs. Well, that's true. Or how about the fact the we've allowed much of the rest of the world to leap frog ahead of us in education? That's part of the problem with jobs. Is that the direction they're upset about? Because if it isn't, it should be. If folks are mad about that, they're right to be mad. Is it the debt and deficit or out of control spending? Or maybe it's immigration or the courts, or too much money in politics or global warming or alternative energy or food prices or the speeding ticket you just got or more on education, or even all of the above? Don't ya just love pollsters who don't ask the questions that would be helpful? Saying people are unhappy about the direction and stopping there isn't kidding me. They either don't know what questions to ask or they have an agenda they're afraid the answers might not support. Hey pollsters, did you know that America isn't actually moving at all. It's still right here in the same old place in North America? So if you're going to ask if we're headed in the wrong direction, let's find out what direction that is. And then let's find out exactly what direction people would like us to head in. Because you're not helping. You're just taking up time and space. And frankly, we have better things to do with our time and space. And, if you're trying to help politicians, be advised, politicians really don't pay any attention to polls unless they favor the politicians in question.

Boy Do I Love Flat Taxes.

What is it about flat taxes or the 999 proposed by Herman Cain that some folks like so much? Well let's look at the 999 first and that'll answer some of the flat tax questions too. The 9-9-9 proposed by Mr Cain reduces corporate taxes from 35% to 9%, but in fairness it eliminates many loopholes. It changes personal income to 9% from anywhere from 0% to about 28% but it eliminates most loopholes too. Then it adds a 9% sales tax on everything. So, for example, in Pennsylvania where we have a 6% sales tax, it would go to 15% total. So what? Well, a sales tax comes down hardest on the poor because both poor and rich pay the same for a quart of milk or a loaf of bread. So it takes a far bigger percentage of the wages from the poor then from the rich. Now you might think then, that a flat tax must be fair, right? Wrong. If I make $20,000 and pay 9%, that leaves me with $18,200. Hardly enough to live on. But some one making $500,000 would have $455,000 left. Even someone making $100,000 would have $91,000 left. Now I don't know about you, but I could get by on $455,000 easier then I could on $18,200. I could even squeak by on $91,000 easier. But what about the person making even less than $20,000? It has to do with fairness. The more you make, the more you should pay, as a percentage of your income. And here's the thing, the wealthy, like it or not, are the only ones with the where-with-all to pay more. Well why not cut the size of government? Of course there is waste, but nowhere near enough to make the difference needed. And it's beginning to prove out that  outsourcing jobs to private contractors doesn't help. In Michigan they're finding that the switch to private contractors paying much less for the same work, leaves the savings showing up as costs in other parts of the budget. Like unemployment, food stamps and medicaid and the like.

You Be The Judge Of Judges.

Well guys and gals, this Tuesday is election day. I hope you vote. It's all about locals. Which doesn't excite the press, but it's really important. Consider facts like judges are, more and more, being bought and sold on the open election market. Now you may find that hard to believe, but if you haven't been watching ads on TV against one judge or another, you've missed out and you're in a much better position to select a judge then the average voter. Here's the problem. Special interest groups are spending money to fight for or against the election of judges. But judges aren't supposed to be in favor of the desires of special interests. Nor are they supposed to be against the desires of those special interests. Judges are supposed to follow the law. If a special interest doesn't like the law, they need to support change in the law, not the courts. I don't know why judges are elected anyway. Or rather, I think a non-partisan committee, for state and federal courts would be better. The committee picks two people it feels would be best for the court. Then the people vote on those two. The only question then is, who picks the committee members? All I know is that it would need to be almost anyone but a politician. Seriously. Judges are not supposed to be Republican or Democrat. When it comes to their decisions on the bench, they're supposed to think neutral. They're supposed to be impartial. If they have a friend involved in the case, they're supposed to requse themselves. How come? Because they're supposed to be neutral, remember? In fact there should be a law that any judge who gets a dime from any person, special interest or political party should be disqualified from trying a case that in any way relates to that person, special interest or party. It's not that I don't trust people, it's just that I don't think people can be trusted.

My Friends, As A Politician, I Asure You.

Here's an example of how well our government is working these days. You recall the so called "Super Committee" set up last Summer to come up with a plan to decrease our debt and deficit? Uh huh, well to spur them on toward success in that effort, it was decided that if they were unsuccessful, perish the thought, then automatic cuts would kick in. But not just to the favorite whipping posts of one side or the other. Nope, it would cut from the favorites of both sides. Social Security and Medicare on the one side, defense on the other side. Well, we're fast approaching the game time and neither side of the "Super Committee" is being super. In fact they're being the same old, same old. But don't let that concern you, because a slew of bills have surfaced in the House and Senate to replace military budget cuts with budget cuts to other "unspecified" programs. Notice how the other "Unspecified Programs" aren't specified. That's because they'd like to make those decisions after the vote. Less debating and they can sneak in whatever they want. And you thought they were dumb. See, the thing is this, just because the congress said it would do one thing, doesn't mean they'll do it. It could just as well mean they'll do something else. Most likely the opposite of what they voted to do. The nice part of being a politician, especially in Washington, is that you do or undo just about anything you feel like doing or undoing. That's why you should always trust a politician to do what he or she promises to do. It's like the old joke: Ya know when a politician is telling a lie? When his mouth is open. Now that's a bit unfair. After all, there are politicians whose word is good. It's just hard to figure out who he gave that good word to. Well, actually that's not true. You can bet that whoever gave him or her the most in campaign donations and who is most likely to give even more is the one that will get that good word. My guess is that it won't be me. And I'll bet it won't be you either.

Don't Ya Just Hate Computer Geeks?

Why is it that computers and computer sites and engines et al, think that by changing their formats they have reinvented themselves? That they then have a fresher newer better product or service? They need to take a cue from automobiles. At least in this respect; No mater how much cars change, in America, they always have the steering wheel on the left side, but you always drive on the right side of the road. No matter what. Well, no matter what except the postal service which has it's steering wheels on the right. And look at the shape they're in. No, with cars you turn the ignition or push the button to start the car. You put it in reverse to back up and in forward gear to go ahead. Why do computer people always think that it isn't change unless everything changes. So that the way you used to do something no longer gives you the same effect. When this happens, you can email the service staff who will help you by emailing you a list of forty seven answers, none of which is the one you need. Then a sentence pops up to ask if this helped. No damn it, it doesn't help. When you finally get someone, they email you to do something you've never done before, and they expect you to know how to do this new step. Then they tell you to frag it. Frig the Frag, I want to know what to do. No, actually I want to do what I used to do. But the new format will allow you to do so much more. Will it make my bed and run the vacuum? Will it pour my coffee? Because that's what I need. I don't need or want it to do all those other things. I don't need it to inform me when the last train for Yuma leaves the station. I'm not going to Yuma. Maybe I'm an old geezer. But I'm not the only old geezer. How about making a computer for old geezers? Huh?

Inequality Makes The World Spin.

Ya know, I don't often agree with David Brooks, the New York Times conservative columnist. But in today's column he talks about inequality in terms of two different terms. On the one hand, there is the inequality between the 1% and the 99%, he says. That's the Wall Streeters and bankers and CEOs against the rest of us. But the other type is the inequality between the college educated and those less fortunate. And that's the group with the greater disadvantage, the greater inequality. Brooks points out how much easier it is for the child of a college grad to get into college, get through college and finish with far less debt to deal with. If your parents didn't get to college, the chances are you won't either. That's where this country is in trouble. And it's why this country is in trouble. Because we have a shortage of college educated workers and an over abundance of non-college, untrained workers. And until this country figures out a way to change that, we're going to continue to have a problem. Now some of the problem can be solved with trade schools. The thing is though, some children of less educated parents should go to college and some children of college educated parents should go to trade school. Here, the problem is that college folks often tend to look down at trade schools as being for those not smart enough to go to college, while trade school folks often look down at college folks as not being able to fix a light because it needs a new bulb. This is the IT era, unless the computers are down. Manufacturing is better done with robots, unless the robots don't work. Or that new house won't get built unless a skilled worker builds it. And none of the equipment will get designed unless that engineer designs it. So we have not only a problem of inequality, but a problem of lack of respect. From both sides. In fact, if there were more respect, there would be less inequality of any type.