How Did The Deficit Get So Large?

If you are like me, you are a little peeved at the actions of the politicians, apparently willing to throw the entire nation under the bus for who-knows-what reason, and, even more peeved at the media for not providing real, in-depth analysis of the causes that got us here so that we can all be informed...

I've seen hints, and even attempted to look at some of the numbers myself, but realistically, I've got more to do - and let's face it: That's why we pay the investigative journalistic profession. They should be delving into the reasons for our current state, and laying it out clearly, and repeatedly when some politician, for power gain, attempts to say otherwise.

This article, in the NYTimes, does exactly what I've been waiting for: A solid presentation of the causes of the deficit, including clearly understandable graphs. Read it, and cogitate on this most salient point:

"...non-
defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades."

It's not the welfare for the public good that has gotten us here...

A little babysitting economics

Dr Krugman says it so well with this story about babysitting...(and notice the pub date - its not recent!)

I seriously wonder that maybe every one of our elected officials is compromised - compromised in the sense that if they were to be seen as the ones who allowed inflation they legitimately fear that not only will they become unelectable, but that cushy jobs as lobbyists or in the banking industry will evaporate, since inflation will hurt lenders (bankers) most... (and so we get a kabuki debate that will only end in the destructive actions of reducing the deficit though government cuts rather than revenue increases...)

I also believe that we don't make enough here - sure, we could pull out with the help of a little inflation, but to what? What would prevent us from falling right back in? Sadly, Krugman's tale doesn't go that far...

Friday Shorts - Buffett, Huckabee, Debt, Anthony

The Republican stance on the debt shows that they have no enduring ideology, other than obtaining and staying in control. Remember that Reagan said that deficits don't matter? As Warren Buffett pointed out, congress raised the debt ceiling 7 times during Bush's term, without nary a whimper. But, they'd hold a gun to America's head over this, threatening to shut down the government? If they hate government that much, perhaps they should seek employment in the private sector...

Ever wonder if maybe Mike Huckabee was forced into politics because he was thrown out of the ministry for a lack of compassion? Every time I see his ad calling for the repeal of the Health Care Plan he just comes across as completely, totally heartless.

Speaking of the debt, have you ever wondered about the history of it? What our ancestor's thought and did related to it? How long has America had government debt? You can hear all these questions answered, and more on Backstory Radio's recent coverage of exactly this topic. Download the podcast, and do whatever it is you do this weekend while you learn why Alexander Hamilton could say, “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Casey Anthony. Everyone I know is certain she committed the murder of her daughter, but her acquittal is actually proof that our judicial system works, and works well. We have to demand sufficient proof of a crime to convict, and if the prosecution fails to bring that proof to trial, then the accused must go free. For there is the distinct possibility in all trials that if there is a lack of proof, then the accused is innocent of the crime in question. We certainly don't want to err on the side of locking up innocent people - even though it means that we must err on the side of occasionally setting the guilty free. (Which I must point out, we don't know has been done here.)

Which brings to mind an excellent campaign question for our congressional and presidential candidates: Do you feel that America's incarceration rate is too high? Are we locking up individuals for 'crimes' that shouldn't require it - and what and how do other nations, who all have much lower incarceration rates, deal with the activities in question? And, the real kicker: Do you support the privatization of our jails and penitentiaries - and do you see any conflict of interests between a private organization which will want to increase the quantity of incarcerated to increase their profits with America's desire to decrease its costs and reduce its government debt?

Big Pancakes

“Daddy, are you staying home today?”
“Yes, hon. It's a holiday.”
“Goody! That means we can have BIG pancakes!”

Big pancakes in my daughter's language are those pancakes that I make on the griddle, not the tiny microwave ones that come in a box. Although it will be more time consuming than I had planned this morning, it is such a simple request, and will give her lots of happiness, so I acquiesce. The real joy, for both of us, is determining what shape the pancake will take. Today, it is to be Pooh Bear. I've made many in the past: Micky Mouse (easy), Brontosaurus, T-Rex, Triceratops, (harder), Thomas (The tank engine – fairly hard). Since batter spreads, it requires a large paddle to flip the rather large pancakes that result.

“Pooh has a big belly,” as I pour an oblong ellipse, “and a pretty big head” as a connecting circle appears. “Tiny ears,” to my daughter's hand clap and exclamation of delight. “Don't forget the feet, Daddy!” she admonishes, and two more pours provide feet. “And arms!” We make some arms, which end up being closer to clubs. “It's Pooh Bear!” she cries, and laughs. This is the moment I love: Seeing the misshapen blob of batter on the griddle through her 5-year-old eyes and imagination as the beloved story-book character of Winnie the Pooh.

It doesn't go completely as planned: During the flip, one of Pooh's feet comes off, but we reconnect it, and the magic is restored. She sits down to eat her pancake, and I set about making a bunch (standard round) for me.

Then the demands start. “I want some orange juice!” “Dad, I need some orange juice!” when it doesn't come fast enough. “And my vitamin!” “Syrup! I want syrup!” Then, in a switch worthy of the Jekyll and Hyde duo, my beautiful, inquisitive, laughing daughter becomes a monster: “I've gotten syrup in my hair! Aaaahhhh, AAAAhhhhhhhh, AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!”

And so, the challenge of parenthood begins, as we balance providing for our little dependents while not giving in to their every demand. It's a tightrope that every parent walks, providing what is reasonable while they cannot, teaching them to do for themselves what they can, instilling in them the confidence they need to negotiate life. Its a work in progress. We won't know the outcome in my daughter's case for 15, 20, maybe 25 years. Has she become capable of balancing her needs and wants against the needs and wants of those around her? Will she politely wait her turn? Will she only ask for what she needs of others, or will she attempt to manipulate them into providing for her things she can do and obtain for herself? Will she quietly tolerate some unfairness, not demanding that she always go first, even if it is her right? Conversely, will she have the confidence to step up and ensure that her needs are met when required (for while there is grace in holding our needs and wants secondary, there are times when it is crucial that we look after ourselves)?

It's tough work. Punishment is not an adult strategy: We've learned it from our children. They punish us for not jumping to their needs, which is quickly extended to their wants. They scream, they throw tantrums (and sometimes things), and will repeat incessantly the demand in too often successful attempts to wear us down. They haven't learned our adult strategies of masking our demands in feigned kindness, proceeded with 'please', 'if you don't mind', 'Could you do me a favor'. They also don't know when to accept defeat, or when it is impolite to ask, skills we hopefully all have. Everything is primal, raw, tears and yells and actions.

Of course, too, our responses depend upon how rested we are. Fortunately for us this morning, I've had a very restful night's sleep. I procure her orange juice (with the admonishment that she ask “Please”), and ask her to wait on the vitamin until I've finished my pancakes. And, in one of those insightful moments, instead of berating her for not keeping her hair out of her plate, I demonstrate to her how to remove the syrup from her hair and have her brush the tangles out. In the process, the monster disappears, and my daughter returns to finish breakfast with me.

This I can count as a parenting success. We've enjoyed a good breakfast together, we've navigated the interactions without growing angry at each other, and my little girl has acquired a necessary skill for those who will wear their hair long and eat big pancakes in the morning.

Could You Kill A Friend?

At the end of my last post I took a subtle jab at the Harry Potter series, curious of anyone would rise to the bait. I don't think that the series is pointless, nor that it is particularly bad. I have outlined before how I don't especially like the model of the protagonist that is chosen, that all others defer to him or her, and they end up saving the world in spite of themselves or their efforts. In real life, success takes effort, confidence, and the support of others (and a little chance.)

I think the real heroes of the series are Severus Snape, Albus Dumbledore, and amongst the children, Hermione Granger. Harry succeeds largely upon the backs of these three, plus the efforts of many others who have been working to defeat Voldemort for longer than Harry has been alive.

Hermione exhibits those qualities that generally lead to real life success, foremost perseverance. She keeps after something until she understands it, researching, practicing, and researching some more. Her timely revelations throughout the series provide Harry the information and spells he needs to move forward. Without Hermione, Harry likely would have fallen into a trap early on, and never recovered.

My advice to my children: Be like Hermione, not Harry.

But what is intriguing to me are the behind the scenes machinations and interplay between Snape and Dumbledore that ultimately bring about the fall of Voldemort. These two have been working for decades to uncover the horcrux, to work out the secrets of Voldemort's power, and to devise a plan to weaken him and then lure him out where he can be killed. Harry stumbles into this when he comes to Hogwarts, and provides a useful decoy for Dumbledore to deploy and distract Voldemort. Again, in an almost deux ex machina fashion, Dumbledore provides Harry with just the information he needs just when he needs it to rise to the occasion and avoid (presumably) death at the hands of Voldemort.

But what of the sacrifice by Dumbledore at the end of the 6th book that ultimately robs Voldemort of the power of the Elder Wand? By having Snape kill him, Dumbledore really sets up Voldemort's defeat. Imagine the conversations those two must have had: “If ever Voldemort gets the upper hand, you must kill me instead.” “My friend, I cannot do that.” “You MUST, or all will be lost.”

Could you kill a friend?

Our minds rightly recoil at the thought – taking a life in a Machiavellian manner to further our ends seems wrong, no manner how it plays out. In the story, Snape's actions not only eliminate an enormous source of power for Voldemort, but they also provide cover for Snape to continue to work towards his former master's defeat. That one action is really the pivotal point of the series.

Snape ultimately succeeds in destroying Voldemort, but per the series, is forced (by Rowling) to do it through Harry, spoon feeding the final information Harry needs as he (Snape) is dying. Armed again through the efforts of others, Harry is able to make the final blow, and the long fall from innocence is complete.

Snape is the hero. But what a dark hero he is! My mind keeps returning to these facts about the story, buried, glossed over; I'm certain missed or misunderstood by many, if not most, of the young readers of Rowling's narrative.

Imagine the conversations that could be had: Is Snape justified in killing Dumbledore? Why or why not? Could we transfer this to situations that could occur in our world (where Elder wands and the Dark Arts don't exist)?

Despite my early misgivings on the series, has Rowling actually written an allegory from which we can learn, or is it just a children's series?