3 December 2010, a Friday

And why would that be since he still has control of both the House and the Senate majorities?

I’ve read so much about how great China was and how good it was doing that I’ve been wondering how true those reports could be and, if so, how long they could keep up the pace.

I read an interesting line the other day, something to the effect that the United States government had now endured in essentially its original form longer than any other currently-existing government in the world. I wonder how many realize that?

Fancy that, Mr Krugman. And what of the people who have believed that before you finally did?

I suppose it depends on whether you believe it’s possible to be just a little big pregnant or not. But I’m interested in his final statement...if Obama does not do this, will Brooks come right out and say that his description of Obama was wrong?

The question which leaps off of the page is that if the Democrats were really so willing to be helpful, why didn’t they make these changes during their last four years in power, two with the addition of Obama? Why should Mr Ryan now suddenly believe that they are interested in compromise when they never showed any inclination in that direction previously?

And what of the people who believe that shifting money away from people who earned it but who have ALSO become elderly as a natural consequence of Spock’s wish that we "live long and prosper" should be forced to give their money up to the "struggling young" and not recognize that as going down the road towards Sweden?

Would Mr Brooks argue that it’s okay if we go only part-way down the road and hope we can stop where we like because it really is not a slippery slide and you can be only a little bit pregnant, after all?

Isn’t it recognized as one of the world’s three greatest lies the eager young teenager’s promise to his reluctant girlfriend that he will only put it part of the way in?

Yes, I know...the logical construct between the Republicans going to the trouble and expense of winning the midterm elections because they proved they could get their way without a majority seems a bit like arguing in opposite directions at the same time without apparently recognizing it, something I call Liberal Logic.

I don’t understand why Robinson doesn’t tell us, if they are going to be permanent, that it will increase the deficit by $7,000 billion dollars over the next ten decades? I mean, doesn’t that make it sound even worse? Maybe he’s afraid someone would point out that deficits are not the result of inadequate taxation but overabundant spending?

See, it’s possible to run a huge deficit even if you tax away every penny "the richest Americans and investment bankers" have. But it isn’t possible to have even a small deficit if you cut spending back to only the amount of money you collect, no matter how much or how little that is, even if it is zero.

A little bleeding-heart music, please, since this means not extending unemployment benefits would somehow be different in moral stature at another time of the year...like during the summer vacation our very wealthy members of congress take, perhaps, maybe even in the Caribbean. (Charles Rangel is being chastised even as we weak for failing to pay taxes on income received from his Caribbean villa, among other things.) If the issue is whether or not it is correct to extend unemployment benefits after they expire, then plucking the Christmas heart-string is as cynical an emotional gesture as you can make.

Anyone notice the segue here from "the richest Americans" to "investment bankers"? It was smoothly done, was it not? If you are an employee at the Mercedes plant or perhaps work on one of the Caribbean cruise liners, well, all we can say is that it’s too bad you are going to lose your jobs because we’re taxing them away, but you know how it is...you have to suffer, too. At least your unemployment benefits won’t be running out, they’ll just be starting under the Obama plan.

And how about the open but smooth dishonesty...the suggestion that "tax breaks" for investment bankers consists of the government writing them a check when they step up and ask for it? Does Mr Robinson wear a secret smile when he imagines how slickly he sold that notion to his unthinking readers? The government is going to write those wealthy people a check, he says earnestly, his hands deftly moving the shells around as his patter continues.

I’m reminded of the time I was explaining to a prospective buyer the tax benefits he would obtain by being able to deduct his mortgage interest on his income tax return, possibly the most sacred of all of the middle-class tax "breaks". "Oh, no," he told me seriously and even a bit condescendingly, "I don’t pay any income taxes." I expressed polite wonder, since he told me that he had enough income to purchase the house in question. "No," he told me, "they send me a check every spring."

I sat in awe of the genius who first conceived, many years ago, of income tax over-withholding throughout the year. This man apparently honestly believed he was not paying income taxes since they sent him a check every year after he filed his return.

I told my hoped-for customer that his check represented only a partial refund of his own money, and unless it amounted to the total they had withheld from him all year then he had, indeed, paid taxes. He looked at me as if I was trying to employ some arcane sales technique that he couldn’t quite grasp, but he was clearly onto me anyhow, smarter than I thought he was. But I had lost his confidence in me with that explanation and as a result he did not buy while employing my services.

The "con" in "con men" is short for "confidence"...they cannot sell their scam if they cannot gain the mark’s confidence, and clearly my buyer had seen through me. After he walked outside he probably said something to his wife about did she see what I had tried to pull over on him? Did she smile and nod appreciatively about her husband’s sagacity and business acumen?

Look, I’m not arguing neither that the unemployment benefits should not be extended, nor am I arguing in favor of tax cuts "for the richest Americans" or even the "investment bankers" but I would like to see Robinson use more basic honesty when he writes, even if it does make rabble-rousing more difficult.

The economy is not STIMULATED when people receive unemployment checks which they use to pay for housing, food, clothing, transportation and other necessities. Perhaps the status quo will be maintained when all that happens, a steadier flow of commerce will continue, but no NEW growth will occur...and that’s what the word "stimulus" implies. I could give you money for your rent for those next ten years or even the next ten decades without producing one ounce of economic stimulus since it would consist of money that I could not spend or save, instead. What the American economy needs is real growth which will produce the jobs lost to the recession, at the very minimum.

Robinson acts like—and perhaps even believes—that the money those wealthy folks put in the bank is not serving any useful purpose. Out of the other side of his mouth he may well complain that one problem is that the banks aren’t lending, especially not to poor black people in need, but he seemingly has no idea where the banks get their money to lend if not from "the richest Americans" who have some left over to save. (Maybe the Federal Reserve gives it to them out of their, ah, reserves? That sounds plausible, doesn’t it?)

Yes, I know...at other times it seems we remember Robinson complaining that Americans have one of the lowest rates of saving in the world and need to save more in order to be able to compete economically with the rest of the world, but he must have meant $5 here and there from every Tom, Dick and Harry and not the larger sums deposited by the wealthiest investment bankers, or maybe basketball players, perhaps, who spend their multi-million dollar salaries wisely to stimulate the economy rather than banking or investing them.

Or maybe it’s the fault of the evil Big Corporations...we all know profits are bad things for them to have, especially "windfall" profits (defined as "any amount sufficient to make a liberal envious") even while simultaneously complaining that the dearth of investment capital is what is keeping GDP from growing fast enough to reduce unemployment. Go ahead, laugh, but that’s really their complaint, a stunning display of Liberal Logic.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and unemployment benefits spent by the recipients do not either stimulate or add to the GDP. I’m all in favor of extending them, myself, but not for meretricious reasons.

Mr Robinson complains that the Republicans, a class of people he heartily dislikes almost as much as the wealthiest American investment bankers, apparently none of whom are Democrats, are cynically holding up the unemployment benefits part of the bill in exchange for the tax relief part, a typical political quid-pro-quo negotiation tactic, but the reason he cannot understand why his majority Democrats are caving in is because he won’t admit that their position is even more cynical, if anything.

Namely, many of them actually know very well what produces stimulus in an economy and its name is new investment capital. And they also know that it does not come from the savings of the poorest Americans or taxes they do not pay at all.

Enough Democrats probably secretly know that taxing the extra investment money away to PARTLY reduce a deficit produced by excessive spending isn’t really the wisest economic decision, even if it’s politically incorrect for them to say so openly. "Sock it to the rich!" has always been a useful slogan.

No, it’s much easier to weep openly about "just before Christmas" and complain about "Caribbean cruises" and cry "cynical and heartless Republicans" because then when the mutual agreement is reached in congress, as I believe it inevitably must be, the Republicans will not suddenly have become warm-hearted, oh no, the Democrats will claim credit for forcing their hands even as the Democrats justify how they, themselves, were forced to oh so reluctantly gave in on the tax breaks for the wealthy.

And what Op-ed columnist do I expect to be leading that braying pack of non-cynics?

Let’s employ the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that the easiest and simplest solution to the problem or answer to the question is most likely to be the correct one. Occam’s Razor conclusion: Mr Holder does not want to bring charges against Mr Assange.

Occam’s Razor conclusion: the Justice Department has no complaint with what is happening.

Occam’s Razor conclusion: the administration is not unhappy about what happened.

I think it depends on your age group as well as what part of the country you come from. For instance, when I was a young man and joined the Marine Corps from rural southern Utah, essentially, we hadn’t yet started using the term "gay" and most of my friends scarcely knew what the word lesbian meant. I’m virtually certain I did not. I was chief clerk of Headquarters Battalion between ages 19-21 and as a result I was privy to all of the court-martial documents which needed typing, thus I read about things that some of the Women Marines, as they were called in those days, did to one another which led them afoul of the law. My fellow clerks and I did not know whether we were scandalized or titillated, but we also weren’t absolutely positive that girls really actually did things like that, either, no matter what we read.

So "homosexuals" is a word like "liberals" to a certain age group...it has bad connotations. Saying someone is progressive or gay or even lesbian simply sounds better.

I’ll bet if the terms "queers" or "homos" had been used the results would have been different still.

I’ve long had a problem with the idea that an enemy should be allowed to fight as hard as he can to kill you and then, after running out of ammunition, be allowed to surrender. Why? His intent has not changed, only his ability.

Other than the rare, high quality capture, I sincerely doubt if much useful intelligence is obtained from interrogating the average grunt, especially if you have to interrogate them by asking nicely and no more.

Since capturing an enemy and then guarding him against escape or even subsequent attack represents a risk, why would any military person wish to take that risk without the possibility of at least an equal gain and preferably a greater one? The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t.

Only a damn fool would capture and be forced to risk caring for prisoners in a war zone whether others were still trying to kill him and his prisoners would join them in that effort if given the chance.