The S&P downgrade, and why revenues are necessary

Anyone who has been following this mess in Washington is aware of the fact that Standard and Poor's downgraded the U.S. Government's debt rating.  Many on the right are pointing out that the primary reason given was a failure to cut the National Debt significantly enough, and that this means that the crap deal hammered out in Congress didn't go far enough.  True and False.


The National Debt, generally, is the amount of money owed by (or taken on credit) by the national government, as opposed to the Deficit, which is the shortfall between revenues and spending.  The problem with Debt is that it must (or damn well better) be paid, and this guarantees further increase of deficits under almost any circumstance.  The National Debt is necessitated by the Deficit, to adjust for shortfalls, to make sure that money continues to move to necessary services.

The only way to prevent the government to accrue less debt while responsibly fulfilling its functions and obligations is to adjust the revenue structure.  Yes, taxes.  I am going to avoid numbers deliberately, and just try to illustrate this simply.  Deficit = Spending + Revenue, where spending is a negative number, and revenue is positive.  The only way to reduce the deficit absolutely (since spending can not conceivably reach zero) is to increase revenues.  The most sensible, reliable, short-term solution to this is to raise taxes levied domestically, especially income taxes.  Simply erasing the Bush Tax Cuts is enough to take a huge dent out of the Deficit, allowing more fluid capital and, therefore, a more manageable Debt situation.  The less money that needs to be borrowed, it will generally follow that less is borrowed.

Why is it that the rich are expected to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?  Simple.  As humans, we all have basic necessities.  Honestly, the cost differential between one's necessities (needs) and another's should be minimal.  Let's say one person makes A dollars income a year, and that one other person makes B dollars, where B is ten times more than A.  Both of these people have the same necessities, which account for, more or less, the same dollar amount, leave a much smaller slice from A behind as they do from B.  It follows that the person who makes B can afford to take on a greater tax burden while still looking after his or her own necessities.

This is the basic principle behind our Progressive Tax system.  While the government should do what it can to protect people and their property, people are more important than property.  Is it more important to protect one man's profits, while failing to protect another man's basic human needs?  The answer, of course, is no.  This is far from some socialist, egalitarian approach.  It is a basic, sensible approach, which leaves plenty behind for the rich, and I would argue that it doesn't go far enough.

The basic aversion to taxes by many people doesn't simply have to do with a selfish desire to hold on to every earned cent, but to insure that the money they give up is spent wisely.  How much more wisely than to pay down the National Debt, allowing a secure future of borrowing, low mortgage rates, etc.?  Most government programs created over the past century have been created under progressive agendas.  They have, then, been routinely dismantled, piece by piece, by reactionary "conservative" agendas, leaving less robust programs, often finding themselves fighting harder for survival under the threat of "austerity" than serving its intended purpose.  As long as the right tries to disable important government institutions, it can be guaranteed that your tax dollars will be less sensibly spent.

Flat Tax?  National Sales Tax?  These are the most ridiculous things ever.  Again, with the stupid Sales Tax idea, it unnecessarily burdens the poor (who can't afford it) because a greater proportion of their income goes towards purchasing things to fulfill their necessities.  It doesn't work, and it is only proposed to attempt some new attempt at what some Texas textbooks almost came to call an "Ownership Economy."  Whatever you call it, it is still slavery, indenture, and a slashing of the American Dream (which, to those have achieved it, it seems to be less important that others can).  If only we could have a sensible body politic and economy devoted to true shared sacrifice and some sense of a categorical imperative, we'd be on the right track.  I feel less and less that this is going to happen.

The Refrigerator Debacle

Over three weeks ago now, our refrigerator stopped working.  The refrigerator part is at about 60°F, while the freezer is at about 35°F.  While constantly pushing my landlady to take care of it, and after a visit from her or a representative once every two days (also more or less tethering me to my apartment, rather than enjoying my vacation from work), this situation still has not been remedied.

We have had to throw out about $200 worth of food, and we have not been able to buy any frozen food from the grocery store, which makes preparing food less convenient than it should be.

Wednesday night, when I came home from work around 11:30 pm, this is what I saw in the hallway (this is the view from the entrance to my unit):

So, while not a NEW refrigerator, at least it's a replacement.  Just sitting in the hallway.  Notice the marked exit sign?  In case of fire, FAT CHANCE.  Today is now Friday, and this refrigerator is still in the hallway.  Why, you ask?

Good question.  Not that I can manage to swap these refrigerators by myself.  Also, not to mention that this is not my job.  When I called the landlady, she told me that, because the fridge had been stored sideways in a truck to move it, it had to stand upright for two days before it was plugged in.  I do not understand why this would be.

So, no frozen goods (even ice cubes) for almost a month.  Almost a month of keeping my beer, butter, milk, eggs in the freezer.  Oh well.  Maybe, by the time I get home today, we will have a functioning refrigerator.  Fingers crossed.

Google+ and Your Life

I have let many blogs lie fallow over the years.  I am honestly just typing this in order to create a blog post, and I haven't quite gotten a handle about what I'm going to talk about.

That being said, I've recently been shoved into the world of Google+, which has occupied a good deal of time for me.  I have been on vacation from work for the last more-than-two weeks, and I return to the grind this evening.  Finally.  As a full-time worker, I am accustomed to scheduling my life around work.  While it is nice to take some time off every once in a while, finding things to do with myself on a daily basis, with no goals or obligations, is like staring into an abyss.

I have walked a LOT.  I live in a very boring suburban downtown area in a town bordered almost exclusively by towns with decent downtown areas.  The problem with this, though, is that I do not drive, and travel ranges from 4 to 8 miles.  I live right next to a Metra station, which can take me into and out of Chicago at will, but I feel like that takes the fun out of it.

I decided that I should do more to be in shape, so I went for a jog, which lasted for maybe 100 yards...I forgot that my legs and lungs are not quite as they used to be.  So, I started walking.  I walked and walked for about two hours, until I had wandered into downtown Naperville, which was nice.  I was sick of walking, and the train station that could take me home was five minutes' walk away.  Perfect.

That has been a wonderful way to waste some time without spending money, and catching up on new music via my iPod.

Now that Google+ has come along, I feel like I can just sit around, update, tweak, and peek in on other peoples' lives in a more coherent way than social networking has allowed before.  Are you on Google+?  If so, add me to a circle.  I have started this (ugh) Blogger site in the hopes that, in the near future, these sites will get stitched together in such a way that I can update here, and my profile will reflect the changes made.  Here's hoping.