Based on what I heard as a young man of the 60s from the SDS and other left wing radicals , it appears to me that the leadership and extreme supporters of the NRA also hate America. The anti -US and anti- military rhetoric of the NRA borders on the kind of thing that was called treasonous as applied to radicals by conservatives and others back then.
The term "love it or leave it" was popular then , and easily applies as a response to the kind of stuff we hear from the NRA leaders and their extreme followers today about America.
While they clearly hate Obama and the democrats, they aren't so happy with Bush and the republicans either. These zealots apparently do not trust the police or the military to protect us . In truth , they seem to view the government as more of a threat to their safety than criminals !
I know they would differentiate between the country and the government , but what is a country if not it's elected government ?
They are no less revolutionaries than the SDS or other radical groups of the 60s and 70s that I witnessed. Those radicals also "loved" the country but "hated" the government. They were attacked as being disloyal by the media and the politicians . Why aren't these right wing radicals treated the same way?
Eric
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Higher Education Opportunity Myth
There is a pervasive myth, mostly in progressive media, but also accepted in the mainstream, that higher education opportunities in America are getting worse for minorities, and lower and middle classes students, than what they used to be .
The mantra is that the "level playing field" in higher education was better in the past then now.
I think not. Memories appear to have faded, but not mine.
When I went to college in the 60s and 70s, the "unlevel playing field" was much worse then it is today.
First of all, there was no such thing as diversity or affirmative action, and, outright discrimination still existed. At elite schools, the "greased skids", "old boys network" still predominated.
There were few African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or even Women, at elite schools. In fact there were still thought to be quotas for Jews, at least unofficially, at many such schools, including Northwestern. Even good, but not elite schools, had few minorities.
Women did have their own restricted "separate, but equal" elite schools - with few, if any, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and a limited number of Jews.
Here's an example from personal experience how the traditional elites were more advantaged then than now. My Dad was a high school math teacher, so while we didn't have a lot of money, education was always a priority for my sister and me. We went to Proviso East High School in Maywood , Illinois, a racially mixed , working class suburb of Chicago.
It's long story, but I began dating a girl from New Trier High School, a highly regarded pubic high school in one of Chicago's wealthiest old line North Shore suburbs. It was our senior year in high school and she told me that 33 boys in her class were going to Harvard, with a proportionate number going to the other Ivies and girls to the Seven Sisters.
I now live in that school district , and I know that if 3 or 4 ( boys and girls) go to Harvard a year from New Trier , that's a lot. While it's true family connections and support are a critical advantage, at least today's well connected kids have to be very smart and accomplished to get into the best schools.
No one from my very racially and economically diverse high school class went to the Ivy League when I was there. Frankly, you never even thought about it. If you wanted to go to college , you went to "The Pier" ( today UIC) or Northern Illinois ; if you were good in math, maybe you thought about IIT; and if you were really smart, you went to the University of Illinois in Champaign.
That was it. I know this because I asked a college guidance counselor at Proviso East about going to an Ivy League school and he just about thought I was out of my mind ( yes, my grades and test scores were good enough). Few students from Proviso East went out of state , let alone to the Ivy League. Of course there was no financial aid to speak of , but it's true costs where a whole lot less. My parents valued education, and my sister and I went out of state to Big Ten schools, but that was rare at Proviso.
Today, top students at Proviso East, and similarly racially diverse schools in low income neighborhoods, are very much in demand by elite colleges across the country, with great financial aid available.
Turning to my own law school experience at Northwestern University School of Law, 1968-71. Out of a class of 150, there were 10 women ( only 1 woman in the class ahead of me), 3 African Americans, 2 Hispanics, no Asians and, in fact, only 3 or 4 Poles and Italians. A group of us liberal law students actually did that analysis.
It's clear that there are many more women, minorities and lower income students in elite schools today than in the not so distant past when I went to school. Nevertheless the myth of the worsening of the level playing field persists and is getting stronger than ever.
Have we gone through a complete collective loss of memory in this country?
Of course things need to improve for minorities and poor and middle class kids, and the cost of higher education is the biggest problem; but that doesn't mean we have to harken to a past that didn't really exist.
Why can't we acknowledge that advances have been made, even if more needs to be done?
Instead we have another example of people talking about the "good old days" that doesn't square with what really went on.
Eric
The mantra is that the "level playing field" in higher education was better in the past then now.
I think not. Memories appear to have faded, but not mine.
When I went to college in the 60s and 70s, the "unlevel playing field" was much worse then it is today.
First of all, there was no such thing as diversity or affirmative action, and, outright discrimination still existed. At elite schools, the "greased skids", "old boys network" still predominated.
There were few African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or even Women, at elite schools. In fact there were still thought to be quotas for Jews, at least unofficially, at many such schools, including Northwestern. Even good, but not elite schools, had few minorities.
Women did have their own restricted "separate, but equal" elite schools - with few, if any, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and a limited number of Jews.
Here's an example from personal experience how the traditional elites were more advantaged then than now. My Dad was a high school math teacher, so while we didn't have a lot of money, education was always a priority for my sister and me. We went to Proviso East High School in Maywood , Illinois, a racially mixed , working class suburb of Chicago.
It's long story, but I began dating a girl from New Trier High School, a highly regarded pubic high school in one of Chicago's wealthiest old line North Shore suburbs. It was our senior year in high school and she told me that 33 boys in her class were going to Harvard, with a proportionate number going to the other Ivies and girls to the Seven Sisters.
I now live in that school district , and I know that if 3 or 4 ( boys and girls) go to Harvard a year from New Trier , that's a lot. While it's true family connections and support are a critical advantage, at least today's well connected kids have to be very smart and accomplished to get into the best schools.
No one from my very racially and economically diverse high school class went to the Ivy League when I was there. Frankly, you never even thought about it. If you wanted to go to college , you went to "The Pier" ( today UIC) or Northern Illinois ; if you were good in math, maybe you thought about IIT; and if you were really smart, you went to the University of Illinois in Champaign.
That was it. I know this because I asked a college guidance counselor at Proviso East about going to an Ivy League school and he just about thought I was out of my mind ( yes, my grades and test scores were good enough). Few students from Proviso East went out of state , let alone to the Ivy League. Of course there was no financial aid to speak of , but it's true costs where a whole lot less. My parents valued education, and my sister and I went out of state to Big Ten schools, but that was rare at Proviso.
Today, top students at Proviso East, and similarly racially diverse schools in low income neighborhoods, are very much in demand by elite colleges across the country, with great financial aid available.
Turning to my own law school experience at Northwestern University School of Law, 1968-71. Out of a class of 150, there were 10 women ( only 1 woman in the class ahead of me), 3 African Americans, 2 Hispanics, no Asians and, in fact, only 3 or 4 Poles and Italians. A group of us liberal law students actually did that analysis.
It's clear that there are many more women, minorities and lower income students in elite schools today than in the not so distant past when I went to school. Nevertheless the myth of the worsening of the level playing field persists and is getting stronger than ever.
Have we gone through a complete collective loss of memory in this country?
Of course things need to improve for minorities and poor and middle class kids, and the cost of higher education is the biggest problem; but that doesn't mean we have to harken to a past that didn't really exist.
Why can't we acknowledge that advances have been made, even if more needs to be done?
Instead we have another example of people talking about the "good old days" that doesn't square with what really went on.
Eric
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Iraq War 10th Anniversary
On this 10th anniversary of the the Iraq War, here is what we know:
No WMD.
No Oil.
No Saddam Hussein.
However, what did it all mean and what were the consequences, intended or otherwise?
There was no WMD.
Contrary to popular belief, it appears that we didn't go to war because of Oil, since even though we won, we haven't gotten any Oil from Iraq.
While Saddam Hussein , a bad guy, is gone; the "democracy" there now isn't very good for us. But is for Iran.
Thousands of lives were lost, with many more injured, and we spent, and will continue to spend, many billions of dollar.
What was accomplished?
Are we safer? Maybe, but how can we tell?
Do we have more Oil? No
We're clearly not more well liked or regarded. Much of our foreign policy "political capital" have been spent, and we are withdrawing from other global responsibilities.
Query-- If Saddam Hussein were still in power, would there have been an Arab Spring when it happened and was that a good, or not so good, thing? It clearly was for Islamists.
Oh the irony of unintended consequences.
Eric
No WMD.
No Oil.
No Saddam Hussein.
However, what did it all mean and what were the consequences, intended or otherwise?
There was no WMD.
Contrary to popular belief, it appears that we didn't go to war because of Oil, since even though we won, we haven't gotten any Oil from Iraq.
While Saddam Hussein , a bad guy, is gone; the "democracy" there now isn't very good for us. But is for Iran.
Thousands of lives were lost, with many more injured, and we spent, and will continue to spend, many billions of dollar.
What was accomplished?
Are we safer? Maybe, but how can we tell?
Do we have more Oil? No
We're clearly not more well liked or regarded. Much of our foreign policy "political capital" have been spent, and we are withdrawing from other global responsibilities.
Query-- If Saddam Hussein were still in power, would there have been an Arab Spring when it happened and was that a good, or not so good, thing? It clearly was for Islamists.
Oh the irony of unintended consequences.
Eric
Friday, March 8, 2013
Drones in the USA
Other than as political theater, I don't understand the whole "using drones for killings on US soil" brouhaha?
The whole reason we use drones is to (1) protect our pilots from getting shot at and (2) not actually physically entering another country's territory . Since we wouldn't shoot down our own pilots and we clearly aren't intruding onto another country's territory, those reasons for use of drones do not exist. It's more akin to firing artillery shells across borders, but with more range and better accuracy.
The issue of killing Americans in this country without due process goes way beyond use of drones.
Why aren't there similar calls for banning use of satellites, helicopters, fighter planes, FBI agents, police, national guard, etc.
What's the difference?
Isn't it the killing that is the issue, not the type of weapon used?
Whether you are for or against use of drones abroad, the whole domestic use thing seems like just trumped up political theater of the absurd.
Eric
The whole reason we use drones is to (1) protect our pilots from getting shot at and (2) not actually physically entering another country's territory . Since we wouldn't shoot down our own pilots and we clearly aren't intruding onto another country's territory, those reasons for use of drones do not exist. It's more akin to firing artillery shells across borders, but with more range and better accuracy.
The issue of killing Americans in this country without due process goes way beyond use of drones.
Why aren't there similar calls for banning use of satellites, helicopters, fighter planes, FBI agents, police, national guard, etc.
What's the difference?
Isn't it the killing that is the issue, not the type of weapon used?
Whether you are for or against use of drones abroad, the whole domestic use thing seems like just trumped up political theater of the absurd.
Eric
Entitlement Adjustments
Frankly I don't understand the problem the President and Democrats have with making adjustments to entitlements that will enhance the likelihood those entitlements will be there for our kids and grand kids.
Recall that we ( or at least me) said that we will never get our Social Security. Guess what, I am ; because it got "fixed" by making adjustments . We can do so again with comparably little real "pain".
Why are President Obama and the Democrats resisting entitlement reform which mostly impact the rich ?
Here are some of the ideas that should get broad support :
1. Raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare-- people are living longer and healthier lives - exceptions can be made for some jobs. Since poor people don't live as long as rich people and blue collar people don't live as long as white collar people and have less "healthy" retirement years, means testing may be the answer there, along with exceptions for more strenuous jobs.
2. Means test Medicare premiums. Maybe even receiving Social Security should be means tested while you're still working at a certain income level.
3. Adjust CPI if it would really be more accurate. This was designed to keep up with inflation, not be an added benefit. If current CPI is viewed as a needed benefit for the poor, means test those individuals getting CPI adjustments altogether.
4. Raise the payroll tax income cut off for Social Security without raising benefits ; and face up to the fact that it's a tax and not insurance, as originally structured . I understand that Obama and liberal Dems would do this in a second if they thought it would pass Congress . However I haven't heard them even propose it . Yes I know it would be considered a tax increase , but at least it won't be that onerous and it would really shore up the system.
5. All means testing should be based on cumulative lifetime income , which information is readily available from the statements we receive from the government periodically.
None of these changes if phased in over time would be catastrophic, and would go a long way towards solving the solvency problem of both programs.
Why are President Obama and the Democrats resisting this , especially for the benefit of the "rich" ?
Eric
Recall that we ( or at least me) said that we will never get our Social Security. Guess what, I am ; because it got "fixed" by making adjustments . We can do so again with comparably little real "pain".
Why are President Obama and the Democrats resisting entitlement reform which mostly impact the rich ?
Here are some of the ideas that should get broad support :
1. Raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare-- people are living longer and healthier lives - exceptions can be made for some jobs. Since poor people don't live as long as rich people and blue collar people don't live as long as white collar people and have less "healthy" retirement years, means testing may be the answer there, along with exceptions for more strenuous jobs.
2. Means test Medicare premiums. Maybe even receiving Social Security should be means tested while you're still working at a certain income level.
3. Adjust CPI if it would really be more accurate. This was designed to keep up with inflation, not be an added benefit. If current CPI is viewed as a needed benefit for the poor, means test those individuals getting CPI adjustments altogether.
4. Raise the payroll tax income cut off for Social Security without raising benefits ; and face up to the fact that it's a tax and not insurance, as originally structured . I understand that Obama and liberal Dems would do this in a second if they thought it would pass Congress . However I haven't heard them even propose it . Yes I know it would be considered a tax increase , but at least it won't be that onerous and it would really shore up the system.
5. All means testing should be based on cumulative lifetime income , which information is readily available from the statements we receive from the government periodically.
None of these changes if phased in over time would be catastrophic, and would go a long way towards solving the solvency problem of both programs.
Why are President Obama and the Democrats resisting this , especially for the benefit of the "rich" ?
Eric
Monday, March 4, 2013
One Way To Reform Tax Code
While everyone agrees we need to reform the tax code, that's about where the agreement stops.
Since it's likely that rates will not be raised beyond the recent limited expiration of the Bush tax cuts, , the new mantra is closing loopholes and tax breaks.
Again while everyone agrees we should close loopholes, doing so mean different things to different people.
For liberals, tax reform is code of higher taxes, mostly for those they consider to be rich. They want more revenue to grow government , combat income inequality and maybe reduce the deficit a bit.
For conservatives, it's broadening the base to lower the rates. However, the GOP wants the reforms to be revenue neutral because they don't want to grow government , and don't believe the new revenue would be used to reduce the deficit and the debt.
So what can be done that isn't actually harmful to the economy? My guess is plenty, but we need "cracker jack" high powered corporate tax lawyers to tell us. These guys spend their lives figuring out how companies and the wealthy can minimize their tax bill. Who better to tell us what those mostly tax saving driven provisions are and how to eliminate them ?
I'm not talking about "loop holes" for home mortgage interest, charitable contributions , employer health insurance contribution, and state and local taxes. Those effect relatively ordinary people, and can have very adverse public interest consequences.
I'm talking about all the exotic stuff that only big time tax lawyers know about, but which could generate billions of dollars of revenue. So much of what businesses and wealthy people do is tax driven. Let's just stop , or at least rein in, all of that .
Billions and billions of dollars have been saved by skilled tax lawyers for their corporate and wealthy clients. Who better to figure how that money can be freed up for the government, without curtailing vital public interests.
Example #1 of course is the treatment of carried interests as capital gains rather than ordinary income. But there are lots more examples and I'm sure they add up to big big dollars.
Even a regular real estate lawyer like me can come up with at least one big example . Eliminate the so called 1031 like kind exchange in connection with sales of property. Structuring sales in compliance with Section 1031 of the Code , results in the deferral of millions and millions of dollars in taxes. I cannot think of any significant public purposes that arises from these " like kind " exchanges. People don't really exchange things much these days , and this is just primarily used a tax deferral technique.
Another easy one is the step up in basis upon death. Why can't the basis just carry over so taxes are not lost forever?
Just think what a group of high powered tax lawyers could come up with.
Those tax structures may be legal, but most don't seem to have any compelling public purpose beyond saving taxes. If that truly is the only reason, then eliminate it. Yes, I know that already is the law, but all too often the spirit of the law is sacrificed to the letter of the law. This is an area where those tax experts can really help tightened things.
Let these lawyers come up with their ideas before the politicians and special interest group get involved.
I know I'm way beyond my depth here , so I'd like to hear what more knowledgeable people think.
Eric
Since it's likely that rates will not be raised beyond the recent limited expiration of the Bush tax cuts, , the new mantra is closing loopholes and tax breaks.
Again while everyone agrees we should close loopholes, doing so mean different things to different people.
For liberals, tax reform is code of higher taxes, mostly for those they consider to be rich. They want more revenue to grow government , combat income inequality and maybe reduce the deficit a bit.
For conservatives, it's broadening the base to lower the rates. However, the GOP wants the reforms to be revenue neutral because they don't want to grow government , and don't believe the new revenue would be used to reduce the deficit and the debt.
So what can be done that isn't actually harmful to the economy? My guess is plenty, but we need "cracker jack" high powered corporate tax lawyers to tell us. These guys spend their lives figuring out how companies and the wealthy can minimize their tax bill. Who better to tell us what those mostly tax saving driven provisions are and how to eliminate them ?
I'm not talking about "loop holes" for home mortgage interest, charitable contributions , employer health insurance contribution, and state and local taxes. Those effect relatively ordinary people, and can have very adverse public interest consequences.
I'm talking about all the exotic stuff that only big time tax lawyers know about, but which could generate billions of dollars of revenue. So much of what businesses and wealthy people do is tax driven. Let's just stop , or at least rein in, all of that .
Billions and billions of dollars have been saved by skilled tax lawyers for their corporate and wealthy clients. Who better to figure how that money can be freed up for the government, without curtailing vital public interests.
Example #1 of course is the treatment of carried interests as capital gains rather than ordinary income. But there are lots more examples and I'm sure they add up to big big dollars.
Even a regular real estate lawyer like me can come up with at least one big example . Eliminate the so called 1031 like kind exchange in connection with sales of property. Structuring sales in compliance with Section 1031 of the Code , results in the deferral of millions and millions of dollars in taxes. I cannot think of any significant public purposes that arises from these " like kind " exchanges. People don't really exchange things much these days , and this is just primarily used a tax deferral technique.
Another easy one is the step up in basis upon death. Why can't the basis just carry over so taxes are not lost forever?
Just think what a group of high powered tax lawyers could come up with.
Those tax structures may be legal, but most don't seem to have any compelling public purpose beyond saving taxes. If that truly is the only reason, then eliminate it. Yes, I know that already is the law, but all too often the spirit of the law is sacrificed to the letter of the law. This is an area where those tax experts can really help tightened things.
Let these lawyers come up with their ideas before the politicians and special interest group get involved.
I know I'm way beyond my depth here , so I'd like to hear what more knowledgeable people think.
Eric
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Generational Mobility in the USA
The current concern among many Americans is that it is no longer true that every generation does better than the one before. That no doubt is a valid concern.
However let's exam the context of this proposition a little further.
Using my family as an example, of those first generation Americans, only one of six of my mother, aunt and uncles went to college. I'm sure that many other Americans of my generation have similar experiences.
On the other hand, most of my cousins have gone to college; consequently it wasn't too difficult to financially do better than our parents. That created a lot of social/economic mobility.
Said another way, most of our kids' parents went to college; unlike the prior generation. As such it's not surprising that while our kids too have gone to college, some may not surpass their parents financially.
This generational change among families of relatively recent immigrant status, drive a good deal of this phenomenon, I suspect.
I throw this out there once again in my role as a contrarian observer, even though I too recognize the problems our kids face.
Eric
However let's exam the context of this proposition a little further.
Using my family as an example, of those first generation Americans, only one of six of my mother, aunt and uncles went to college. I'm sure that many other Americans of my generation have similar experiences.
On the other hand, most of my cousins have gone to college; consequently it wasn't too difficult to financially do better than our parents. That created a lot of social/economic mobility.
Said another way, most of our kids' parents went to college; unlike the prior generation. As such it's not surprising that while our kids too have gone to college, some may not surpass their parents financially.
This generational change among families of relatively recent immigrant status, drive a good deal of this phenomenon, I suspect.
I throw this out there once again in my role as a contrarian observer, even though I too recognize the problems our kids face.
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)