Vol. 2 No. 67 June 22, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Wreckonomics
One of my prime ambitions ever since I was a little bogus economist was to coin a word. The idea of having my very own word, which people could quote with the preface, ”As the Bogus Economist called it...,” stoked my ambition.
I first tried my hand at coinage when I observed a politician who kept changing positions was indulging in “flippage.” My friends kindly mocked me and suggested I send the word to International House of Pancakes. My second attempt was the “bubble-up” method of wealth distribution, which substituted the “trickle down” philosophy of giving lots more money to the rich (so that it would eventually reach the poor) with a system of letting the poor and middle class keep more money, which would eventually reach the rich. Derision.
In 2000, I wrote a paper describing a government where large multi-national companies were the “citizens” and laws were made to further their interests and protect their rights. This government I called “corpocracy,” which I thought was a superb word and which I really thought would immortalize my contribution to the language. Alas, no. Professor Charles Derber of Boston College beat me to it. A Google search lately turned up 37,000 hits – hardly a unique contribution.
My latest effort doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. After looking at the shambles that passes as our economic policy, with its nine trillion dollar debt and incredible gap between the top and bottom brackets, I dubbed it “wreckonomics.” Not bad, I thought. Google struck again – 1330 hits.
Was there no new word for me to coin? The Oregonian didn't help me one bit. In a front page article, I learned that Oregon's corporate tax has remained the same since 1931. Further, the share of the tax burden paid by corporations has gone from eleven percent in the 1980's to five percent today. No fewer than twenty-six corporations with Oregon profits of one million dollars or more paid just ten dollars in taxes, according to the big “O.” I went back to “wreckonomics.”
If a corporation could make a million and only pay ten bucks, how about me? All I had to do was get a job that paid that much. The Help Wanted section of the Oregonian had no jobs paying anywhere near a million and neither did the News-Times. I even asked others (who made up my “support group”) whether they knew of any openings. Nada. So, since I couldn't get a million-dollar job, I had to find out how the ratio of ten bucks to one million worked out when it came to everyday incomes.
Well, if people paid the same rate as some corporations, Harry and Madge Upchuck, making $50,000 a year , would have an Oregon tax burden of fifty cents. Most of us could dredge this up without taking out a bank loan. A person we shall name Charlie, earning Oregon's minimum wage of $7.80 an hour, would make $16,224 a year and pay a whopping sixteen cents or so in taxes. But that's not the way it works.
Oregon taxes actually would take nine percent of the Upchucks' taxable income. Even if this were only half their gross income, they'd pay $2,250. Using the same formula, the twenty-six corporations mentioned by the Oregonian would each owe $45,000 to Aunt Salem. As I compute it, the tax code – which has been unchanged since 1931, you'll recall – has been shortchanging our aunt about $44,990 per corporation yearly. Poor old Charlie would have to allow around $730 bucks (using the same formula) to pay his taxes, about 4500 times the corporate rate. Some of this money would be used to help pay their taxes.
So back to wreckonomics. After Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, it might seem “trickle down” isn't quite trickling down to where it's supposed to trickle (down). The Internal Revenue Service shows the top one percent of Americans, with incomes of more than $348,000, received (in 2005) their largest share of national income since 1928; the top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached record levels of income share. While total reported income in US increased almost nine percent in 2005, average “real” incomes for those in bottom ninety percent dipped slightly compared with 2004, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent. Gains went largely to the top one percent, whose incomes rose to average of more than $1.1 million each with an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
Sorry to make your eyes glaze over, but that's what economists are supposed to do. Being bogus, I can shorten it: the system stinks. It's not that there's anything wrong with getting rich and having lots of money to buy condos which, in the words of the advertisement, “start at an affordable $2,500,000.” It's the stacking of the deck I object to. The swiss cheese tax code carefully engineered in federal and state legislatures by those who have the most to gain has to stop and the way to stop it is to decide you're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Take your pen in hand and demand change.
You can coin any words you'd like. Or just use the old ones.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 64 June 8, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Royal Mess
New czars are old news. It's been only about a month since President Bush solved his own unemployment crisis by naming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former Director of Operations for the Defense Department, the new “war czar,” and now you hardly hear a word about him. This is odd, since according to his job description, he's the man who'll represent the President in dealing with conflicts among the Pentagon, State Department and “other agencies” while the more important wars continue. Still, the front page is Lute-less. Nowadays the media are concentrating on Robert Zoellick, the man who will have to jam his feet into the tiny shoes of Paul “Romeo” Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
The press made a big deal of the array of four-star generals who politely told the President where he might put the job and the potential problems involved with a three-star general giving directions to four-star generals (a situation roughly similar to a vice-president ordering a president around – not a bad analogy). However, now the gurus have hashed over Gen. Lute's new position and moved on and I've still not heard any of them point out the most vexing question arising from his appointment: how about the Chain of Command?
The media, in its truly American tradition, put Gen. Lute's appointment in royal terms. The word “czar,” like the name “Caesar,” can be translated roughly as “king.” That makes Gen. Lute either “Czar Lute” or “King Douglas.” I think it's easier to pick the latter. Since King Douglas can give directions to the Defense and State Departments, according to presidential description, it seems only right these organizations should be headed by Prince Robert (Gates) and Princess Condoleeza (Rice). They, in turn, issue orders to General David Petraeus, the highly respected commander of our Iraq forces, which would make him at least a Duke – or is it Earl?
Going the other way, King Douglas reports to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Once you get to “king,” there's not too much room on the up-side, so we'll have to name Hadley Emperor Stephen. Here's where it starts getting tricky. Emperor Steven has to get clearance from arguably the most important and powerful person in Washington – Vice-president Dick Cheney. Looking back in history, there's only one person an emperor willingly submitted to since Emperor Charlemagne knelt before Pope Leo III in the ninth century. So, even though Mr. Cheney is hard to picture as Pope, we could still keep the chain of commands by referring to him in small letters as “his holiness.” That leaves one more step.
Not even the most rabid right-winger would call Mr. Bush God, although some might think the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell created a vacancy. Instead, we have to construct a hypothetical situation and see where it leads us:
Imagine Moqtada el-Sadr deciding it's time to lead an army or two to the Iraqi Parliament and try persuading Prime Minister Maliki to tell foreign forces to leave the country. Duke (Earl?) David gets on the phone to Prince Robert, who requests King Douglas to ask Emperor Stephen to inform his holiness that somebody has to tell somebody what to do. Whom does his holiness call? I've got it! He calls......THE DECIDER!
If your eyes are blurring a little by now, I fully understand. When you throw in Court Jester Tony Snow, what we have sounds like a new version of Nixon's Palace Guard. The whole idea of giving titles to coordinators who coordinate what should have been coordinated four years ago strikes many as absurd, probably because we know the remedy for fixing a regular mess isn't making it a royal mess.
Some situations require thought adjustment with the emphasis on thought – and adjustment. Since there hasn't been a notable amount of either on public display of late, the Bogus will take a chance and offer a couple of relatively simple remedies:
We might start by getting rid of the monarchy (note this well, media). The President feels we need somebody else to share the blame. This is called a scapegoat, not a czar. General Petraeus is just a general. Emperor Hadley is just a Steve and his holiness is just a - Richard. This doesn't mean there isn't room here and there for some royal touches. I can readily relish the coronation of Rose Princesses, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Queen Latifah or even someone formerly known as Prince. As far as our government, however, I'd just as soon stick with the concept of "Mr. President." At present, we have a man in the White House who has shown himself capable of screwing up just as badly as some of us have. Sure, the stakes are higher, but when our kids screw up, we tell them to admit it, apologize and try to do better. The least we can do is expect the same from ourselves and the people we pick to lead us.
If Russia got rid of its czars, we should be able to. As a mater of fact, we could show them how it should be done. As far as titles are concerned, with Fathers' Day coming up, that one is plenty for me
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Royal Mess
New czars are old news. It's been only about a month since President Bush solved his own unemployment crisis by naming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former Director of Operations for the Defense Department, the new “war czar,” and now you hardly hear a word about him. This is odd, since according to his job description, he's the man who'll represent the President in dealing with conflicts among the Pentagon, State Department and “other agencies” while the more important wars continue. Still, the front page is Lute-less. Nowadays the media are concentrating on Robert Zoellick, the man who will have to jam his feet into the tiny shoes of Paul “Romeo” Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
The press made a big deal of the array of four-star generals who politely told the President where he might put the job and the potential problems involved with a three-star general giving directions to four-star generals (a situation roughly similar to a vice-president ordering a president around – not a bad analogy). However, now the gurus have hashed over Gen. Lute's new position and moved on and I've still not heard any of them point out the most vexing question arising from his appointment: how about the Chain of Command?
The media, in its truly American tradition, put Gen. Lute's appointment in royal terms. The word “czar,” like the name “Caesar,” can be translated roughly as “king.” That makes Gen. Lute either “Czar Lute” or “King Douglas.” I think it's easier to pick the latter. Since King Douglas can give directions to the Defense and State Departments, according to presidential description, it seems only right these organizations should be headed by Prince Robert (Gates) and Princess Condoleeza (Rice). They, in turn, issue orders to General David Petraeus, the highly respected commander of our Iraq forces, which would make him at least a Duke – or is it Earl?
Going the other way, King Douglas reports to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Once you get to “king,” there's not too much room on the up-side, so we'll have to name Hadley Emperor Stephen. Here's where it starts getting tricky. Emperor Steven has to get clearance from arguably the most important and powerful person in Washington – Vice-president Dick Cheney. Looking back in history, there's only one person an emperor willingly submitted to since Emperor Charlemagne knelt before Pope Leo III in the ninth century. So, even though Mr. Cheney is hard to picture as Pope, we could still keep the chain of commands by referring to him in small letters as “his holiness.” That leaves one more step.
Not even the most rabid right-winger would call Mr. Bush God, although some might think the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell created a vacancy. Instead, we have to construct a hypothetical situation and see where it leads us:
Imagine Moqtada el-Sadr deciding it's time to lead an army or two to the Iraqi Parliament and try persuading Prime Minister Maliki to tell foreign forces to leave the country. Duke (Earl?) David gets on the phone to Prince Robert, who requests King Douglas to ask Emperor Stephen to inform his holiness that somebody has to tell somebody what to do. Whom does his holiness call? I've got it! He calls......THE DECIDER!
If your eyes are blurring a little by now, I fully understand. When you throw in Court Jester Tony Snow, what we have sounds like a new version of Nixon's Palace Guard. The whole idea of giving titles to coordinators who coordinate what should have been coordinated four years ago strikes many as absurd, probably because we know the remedy for fixing a regular mess isn't making it a royal mess.
Some situations require thought adjustment with the emphasis on thought – and adjustment. Since there hasn't been a notable amount of either on public display of late, the Bogus will take a chance and offer a couple of relatively simple remedies:
We might start by getting rid of the monarchy (note this well, media). The President feels we need somebody else to share the blame. This is called a scapegoat, not a czar. General Petraeus is just a general. Emperor Hadley is just a Steve and his holiness is just a - Richard. This doesn't mean there isn't room here and there for some royal touches. I can readily relish the coronation of Rose Princesses, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Queen Latifah or even someone formerly known as Prince. As far as our government, however, I'd just as soon stick with the concept of "Mr. President." At present, we have a man in the White House who has shown himself capable of screwing up just as badly as some of us have. Sure, the stakes are higher, but when our kids screw up, we tell them to admit it, apologize and try to do better. The least we can do is expect the same from ourselves and the people we pick to lead us.
If Russia got rid of its czars, we should be able to. As a mater of fact, we could show them how it should be done. As far as titles are concerned, with Fathers' Day coming up, that one is plenty for me
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
