Everyone and their dog has an opinion on the national debt, debt ceiling, and deficit issue; so I probably don’t have a lot to add. But, my own take on this is that I could live with deep cuts, even to social programs, so long as there were also significant tax increases on the very wealthy. It’s easy for me to say that, I suppose, since I’m not a beneficiary of any of the major social programs. That’s leaving aside, for the moment, that Keynesian economics suggests that cutting off spending like that in a stagnant economy is a stupid thing to do.

The reason I would insist on increased taxes for the very wealthy is because: a) it ends the deficit and starts reducing the debt that much faster; and b) it helps ensure that the national debt isn’t just being used as a pretext (which it is) to end or limit social programs that some conservative factions never liked in the first place.

Without a corresponding increase in taxes on the wealthy, I get the sense that the dynamic is to keep ratcheting down taxes; gut social security, medicaid, and medicare; not do much at all to address deficits; and generally roll back the New Deal and return us to the status quo of the Gilded Age.

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one. —J.D. Salinger

This one goes out to all of the default embracing, debt ceiling purists out there:

About ten years ago, Cass Sunstein observed that the Internet would have the effect of providing most of us with a self-selected news diet that would reinforce our biases and polarize us. An early adopter of the Internet and someone who disliked the mainstream media of the time, I bristled at the notion. As I recall, the time was marked by breathless reporting in the mainstream media about pretty much every unfounded or marginally founded calumny Clinton’s political opponents could sling at him; leading to the impeachment. We’d been treated to the O.J. trial and what I considered slanted coverage of the 2000 election, leading to a Presidency of questionable legitimacy. And we were about to be treated to “journalism” of such irresponsibility that it would put us in Iraq for years to come. Judith Miller and the aluminum tubes, anyone?

Be that as it may, Sunstein was correct. We are able to, and many of us do, select media packages that reinforce our biases. This undermines Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous maxim, “you are entitled to your own opinion; but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Increasingly, disparate opinions are not based on common facts. Instead, citizens are coming to view the country based on independent sets of facts. It’s as if a jury were empaneled, then half of them listened only to the prosecution and half of them listened only to the defense, then they were thrown into a room and asked to reach a verdict. Compromise and mutual understanding in such a situation would be understandably difficult.

Frequently, the media outlets commanding the most loyalty are ones that treat their readers and viewers to a daily diet of existential threats. One of the most recent horrors to hit the news is the nutjob in Oslo who murdered nearly a hundred people. I will be shocked if we find out that he regularly consumed a balanced media diet. Instead, I am almost certain we’ll find that he pretty much read and watched only those things which reinforced his particular neuroses. But it’s not just him, there are branches upon branches here. Where the shooter is mentioned as Christian, we’ll have more people poisoned by media packages that reinforce the notion that only Christians get singled out as Christians when this kind of bloodshed occurs. And we’ll have other media packages that insist that, when it’s a Christian, the person is always a lone wolf; but if it’s a Muslim, somehow it’s the entire religion that’s responsible. Replace religion with gun rights, and there will be another set of self-reinforcing narratives. (With interesting alignments — the pro-Christian set, I’ll wager, will by and large be coupled with the pro-gun rights set.)

And, for those who seek “balance,” often as not, they get pablum that can’t do any more than pick two sides and take an arbitrary middle. See, for example, the recent study of BBC science coverage determining that it gave too much weight to fringe scientific positions, creating the illusion that they had comparable merit to positions much more widely held in the relevant scientific communities. Or, as John Cole put it in more memorable language (albeit in a slightly different, more partisan context):

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

I don’t have great solutions except to recommend everyone read a lot and to read things that make them uncomfortable. My reading is varied, but weighted to the left — I have a lot of the neutral and a little of the left and some sprinkling of the right. But, at least for me, I get more or less daily checks from commenters here at the blog who have a decidedly different world view than me. We probably aren’t convincing each other of much; but it’s a little like when the Christians collided with the Muslims during the Crusades. Both learned a lot more about the world, just from having interacted, even if it was in a bloody, destructive kind of way.

I think I’m spending too much time paying attention to national politics. Following the day-to-day goings on in Washington is like a psychic toxin. I’m not sure if it’s the same as it ever was, but with the hype machine dialed up to eleven or if our country is having some significant convulsions. (The fact of inconsistent wave elections in 2006, 2008, and 2010 suggest the latter.) Nationally, I have little use for anyone. The Congressional Republicans are nuts, and the Democrats are largely spineless. On the state level, it’s better; though the Republicans are moving quickly in the wrong direction and the Democrats continue to select Pat Bauer as their leader. And, on the local level, I like my politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike); they are focused on making sure the cities and county function fairly well — getting precious little assistance from state and local politicians in the process.

Anyway, contemplating the support the national parties have currently, Digby had a post up that I can only find in my reader now – not on the actual site. But, he she noted how the racial divide had played out in the past few years. The Republicans have increased their support among poor, young whites substantially. Digby offers an explanation:

Suppose you’re a 28-year-old straight white guy who graduated high school as a D student, and now work a blue or pink collar dead-end job private sector job somewhere. You’re vaguely Christian, but not a fervent believer. You’ve got a live-in girlfriend, and maybe a kid on the way. What does the Democratic Party offer you?

Not much. The entire Party is obsessed right now with defending Medicare and Social Security, two programs that you don’t think you’ll ever see anyway, and age 65 seems like it might as well be 300 years from now–not that you figure you’ll be able to retire regardless. The only unions the Party seems to care much about are in the public sector: people who make way more money and have better job security than you do for about equivalent labor. That makes you resentful and wonder why your tax dollars are supporting them. The Democrats keep saying that a college education and universal Pre-K are the golden bullets to solve our economic problems. You don’t believe that and for very good reason, but it doesn’t help you anyway: you have neither the time nor money nor interest to go back to school. And your kid? You’re too worried about keeping her fed to bother about Pre-K. And besides, your school district sucks, and just seems to a huge money sinkhole that never gets better. You have no problem with the Latinos you went to school with, and you know some really nice undocumented families, but you’re also afraid for your job security. The wars overseas seem to keep going no matter who is in power, which makes the military less than attractive as an option. You’ve got nothing in common with the crazy evangelicals you know, and you have no problem with gay people, but your liberal friends who went to college seem pretty condescending and know-it-all to you, which makes you less than thrilled to be associated with them.

Why should you vote for a Democrat? Good question.

He She goes on to explain that, back in the 30s – 60s, the Democrats had a solid economic message for a guy like that. Come with us, and we’ll do something for the workers; don’t support the other guys, they’re heartless corporate toadies. Now, the economic message is more like, come with us and things will still get worse, just more slowly. And, we’re also corporate toadies, but less so.

The national Democrats seem to be back to the Tom Daschle era of the early 2000s, caught in a perpetual cringe, probably having at least something to do with a desire to make out like Evan Bayh after you retire. That’s why I found Howard Dean to be so inspiring back in 2003-2004; not because his policies were especially liberal — they weren’t — but because he was unapologetic and clear when he spoke about those policies.

Kudos to the Journal & Courier editorial staff. They went ahead and printed the opinion column of Purdue economist, David Hummels which pretty well eviscerated the Journal & Courier’s recent, history-challenged editorial on the “debt crisis.”

Hummels notes that the current political wrangling over spending threatens to be a crisis, not because of the debt or deficit itself, but because of the arbitrary threat to default on payments which would, in a stroke, crush the trust of the financial markets in Treasury Bills as “the mattress investors tuck their money into when uncertainty reigns.” Once that confidence is gone, managing the rest of our financial affairs becomes a lot more difficult.

Secondly, he reminds us that, not so long ago, we had surpluses, not deficits. What changed most dramatically was not spending but revenues.

But the single largest reason for the reversal in budgetary fortunes was the Bush tax cuts.

In 2000 the federal government collected 20.6 percent of GDP in revenue, but only 14.9 percent in 2010. Had tax revenues remained at 2000 levels, we would have run surpluses for all of the last decade except the recession years, and closed two-thirds of the current deficit.

This was well-understood at the time these tax cuts were enacted. They were made subject to “sunset” provisions precisely because every estimate showed that they would bust the budget over time.

Indeed, the baseline forecast of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showed that with tax cuts allowed to sunset, U.S. debt and interest payments stabilize at slightly above current levels.

He gently mocks the Journal & Courier’s invocation of World War II patriotism in buying savings bonds while failing to note the taxes paid by The Greatest Generation.

The J&C editorial also noted the patriotism of the World War II generation in buying savings bonds to finance the war effort. It doesn’t mention that taxes paid by the greatest generation tripled during their war years. Perhaps they too grumbled about excessive government spending and tax rates choking off economic growth.

Or maybe they, like previous and subsequent war generations, stepped up to the plate and paid the taxes necessary for the government to function. In contrast, our generation’s patriotic response to the global war on terror was to take a tax holiday.

The Bush tax cuts were a bad idea then — I recall railing against them at the time — they are a worse idea now. Obama screwed up by making a deal to extend them. Go back to the Clinton tax structure, and the rest of the government financial problems become manageable; particularly if we manage to wind down the existing discretionary wars and somehow manage to avoid jumping into other ones.

I wouldn’t keep beating on this cursive thing so much except that I was bad at it and really hated being forced to deal with it as a kid in school. Between typing and printing, I have not missed cursive for an instant since the moment my teachers stopped requiring me to use it.

So, I studied this article in the Journal & Courier with respect to the justifications offered for continuing cursive instruction even if it was no longer in the curriculum. There is less here than meets the eye. The justifications offered, as I read them are:

Cursive writing and handwriting are ways to do hands-on instruction in the writing process and thinking process and small motor skills. There are many benefits that are research-based for cursive handwriting.

Small motor skills I can understand. The rest just looks like word salad to me. “Ways to do hands-on instruction in the writing process” and “many benefits that are research-based.” But, then, my brain has always had difficulty parsing Education jargon.

Cursive proponents contend that cursive is an unfiltered form of self-expression, a much more personal form of language than typing on a computer keyboard. . . . cursive is a method through which students can demonstrate their individuality. Handwriting is still such a unique quality to each and every (student). . . More of the personality comes out rather than with a keyboard, which you can use to say the same thing but with a little bit of a disconnect because it’s going through the keyboard

Really? Seems to me that, particularly with writing, the words chosen for the expression are far better and more important vehicles for expression of individuality than the method of writing the letters to form those words could ever be. In fact, I would argue, that the method of constructing those letters is almost entirely incidental when compared to the words used for expression, in terms of “demonstrating individuality.” Writing out “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” half a hundred times does very little in terms of allowing one to express one’s personality.

Cursive is an additional way for people to separate themselves and express their thoughts, stylizing the physical appearance of their writing much more than is possible with print or typed characters.

I don’t buy it. Again, the words used are far better vehicles for individualizing expression than the method of constructing those words. And, if you really want to get into flexibility, check out the gazillion fonts and colors and other typographical nuances one can get with computers that aren’t necessarily possible or easy with a pencil and paper. To me, this boils down to, “we used to do it this way; therefore, there must be a reason why it’s a shame we won’t continue to do things this way even if I can’t articulate that reason except in vague generalities.”

Indiana students who do learn cursive may find themselves with a more marketable skill in the future.Those that do still take the time and make the effort, they will stand out even more. If able to master it, it might be a little bit like learning another language in a way.

Permit me to be skeptical that the marketplace is clamoring for cursive.

If you like cursive, super; keep using it. If you think it’s something valuable to teach your child; by all means, teach it. But I don’t see a need to put it alongside math, science, spelling, or grammar as something that a kid needs to know. Golf is difficult, allows for individual style, builds character, and is certainly something that helps someone in the marketplace, but it need not be included in the curriculum. I don’t see a need to elevate cursive either.

Model legislation is not at all confined to conservative causes or nefarious lobbyists; but I have seen the issue in the news lately (see also Indiana Law Blog) with respect to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is an organization through which conservative model legislation is routed.

As I said, there is other model legislation. A prominent organization is the Uniform Law Commission which strives to provide model, non-partisan legislation on a variety of subjects (Indiana’s delegation includes James Bopp and Vi Simpson so, it’s got range in terms of partisanship.) Various institutions and lobbying interests advance their own model legislation.

As a legislative drafter, my primary concern with model legislation was that it created a “magic word” view of the topic. Often, the legislator advancing the model legislation in Indiana wasn’t comfortable making the call on what the bill should or shouldn’t accomplish; they had a general notion, but when it came to addressing particular difficulties, they were uncomfortable modifying the language. So, if the model legislation interacted with existing Indiana law in some troublesome way, it was sometimes difficult to know how to resolve the problem.

A hide-bound devotion to the language itself, sometimes bordering on idolatry, obviously is not a good approach to legislating. You have to grok the idea behind the language so you can make the language serve the idea rather than blindly serving the language as an end in itself. This is more difficult when the legislator is not the one creating the idea or the language. The idea, at times, comes from some group who creates the language and then is not available for consultation when it’s time to modify the language. And that can create a problem.

It occurs to me that an unstated premise of the government debt debate is that bond holders have a morally superior claim on future tax revenues than do social security annuitants.

If this is so, I think it has something to do with a philosophical mindset that values rights concerning property above other sorts of rights. But, I haven’t quite worked out the details yet.

The Urbanophile has an interesting post entitled “Are States An Anachronism?” The whole thing is worth a read, but I’ll relay a couple of thoughts here. He notes that state/city legislative power is different from state-to-state. In Illinois, Chicago dominates and the state laws tend to reflect this with policies that help a major, international city, but, in so doing, harm smaller cities in the state that have to compete against cities in Indiana. Tax policies that actually help Chicago and allow it to compete globally might harm small cities that have no hope of competing globally but have to look for economic opportunities more locally.

The reverse, he argues, is true in Indiana where, apparently despite the gripes of non-Indianapolis types like me, the state dominates the city. This allows policies that may help rural areas and smaller cities while hindering Marion County’s ability to compete globally. (He gives examples.)

Definitely worth a read.