Friday, September 10, 2021

The Billionaire Shortage

Image by Darkmoon_Art from Pixabay

This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. Reading via monitor/tablet is recommended for maximum enjoyment.  

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Intended for H. sapiens that are — in the words of the late, great bon vivant and polymath, Professor Y. Bear — "Smarter [and cooler] than the av-er-age bear." 
Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlereader  

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." -Oscar Wilde


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

According to a recent editorial in the mouthpiece of capitalist pigs everywhere, The Wall Street Journal. — Bernie Sanders Runs Out of Billionaires — there's a billionaire shortage.

Someone at The WSJ. noticed that according to Forbes's latest billionaires list, the US has 724 billionaires.

{You'd think there'd be more of 'em.}

Long story short, the editorial pointed out that if you add the cost of Uncle Bernie's (chairperson of the Senate Budget Committee) $3,500,000,000,000 budget proposal to Uncle Joe's $1,000,000,000,000 infrastructure plan the total cost is $4,500,000,000,000. 

{So what? It's just money, we can always print more.}

Well, Dana, there are certain economists that claim that's true. You'd think Uncle Bernie would be preaching their gospel given how accurate economist's predictions are. That's why they're all rich. 

But Uncle Bernie's shtick is all about beating up on the evil rich. He's built a moderately successful career (net worth, $3,000,000, salary $174,000/yr.) by doing just that. 

{Moderately successful?} 

As compared to the average Joe/Joan/Joen Bagadonuts I mean. To a billionaire, his net worth is a rounding error. 

{He's really good at running for president though.}

True, but as The WSJ. editorial points out, the billionaire shortage is raining on his perennial parade. 


See, the net worth of the Fortunate 724 is only 4.4 trillion and Uncle Bernie wants to spend 4.5 trillion. So, even if you rounded them all up, confiscated everything they have, and put 'em all to work as community organizers you'd still come up short. 

My favorite quote from the editorial: 

"If Mr. Sanders were to confiscate every asset of every American billionaire — Jeff Bezos’s rockets; Elon Musk’s bitcoin; Larry Ellison’s boats; Oprah Winfrey’s houses; Ted Turner’s ranches; Jay-Z’s car collection... — it still wouldn’t cover the cost of Democrats’ next two legislative plans."

{Wait, wait, wait. He only wants to spend $4,500,000,000,000? Hold on a sec', I'll be right back.}

[INSERT DOUBLE JEOPARDY THEME, HERE]

{Aha! Thought so, the current budget of The Fedrl Gummit is $4,829,000,000,000. Uncle Bernie is a budget cutter!}

No, Uncle Bernie and the progressives are trying to pull a fast one, but it's for our own good. If we were as smart as they are they could be straight with us. 


See, the Congressional Budget Office projects that going forward it'll cost about $4,000,000,000 a year to keep the lights on. This is mandatory spending, the money that must be spent, by law, to fund gummit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 

Uncle Bernie's wish list is discretionary spending. This is the part of the budget Congress has to vote on every year, but Bernie's wish list is a framework, not an actual budget, that's spread out over the next ten years.

{So what's the big deal? He's gonna pay for it by raising taxes on corporations and people that make more than $400,000 a year, right?}   

Well, setting aside inconvenient truths like we don't have ten-year budgets, any entitlement is virtually impossible to get rid of once it passes, and anything can happen in the next ten years, right now the devil's in the details. 

We won't know who's supposed to pay what till the appropriate bills are passed, and projecting what Uncle Bernie's utopia will actually cost over the course of the next ten years is pure bonkercockie. 

And as to exactly what's on the wish list that's being hammered out by our betters even as you read this, you'll have to wait for the bill(s) to pass to find out. 

{That sounds familiar for some reason...}  


BIG BUTT.  

Given the fact that corporations can raise prices or lower dividends to pay increased taxes, 

And, given the fact "the 1%" can limit their tax bills with the assistance of helpful tax lawyers and lobbyists, and/or just going on an extended vacay and stop generating income, 

And, given that currently "the 10%" currently pay about 70% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay about 3.1%

I wonder who's gonna wind up holding the bag?

I don't remember Uncle Joe saying that voting for him was a vote for a European-style social democracy wherein everyone semi-cheerfully pays high taxes — but knowing why, and what they will get in return.

Shouldn't we know exactly what we're signing up for and what we'll get in return? Shouldn't that be up to us?   

{No biggie, it's just money, we can always print more.}

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day


Scroll down to share this column or access previous ones. If you enjoy my work and the fact I don't run advertisements or sell merchandise, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal or a credit/debit card.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Facebook or TwitterI post my latest column on Saturdays and other people's work on other days.

  

Friday, September 3, 2021

Free Love

Image by ðŸ‘€ Mabel Amber, who will one day from Pixabay


This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. Reading via monitor/tablet is recommended for maximum enjoyment.  

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Intended for H. sapiens that are — in the words of the late, great bon vivant and polymath, Professor Y. Bear — "Smarter [and cooler] than the av-er-age bear." 
Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlereader  

"We don't need a piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tried and true."
                                                                                                   -Joni Mitchell


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

You know how some memory (accurate or otherwise) from your distant past of no real importance gets stuck in your head for some reason? 

I remember a conversation I had when I was a 16-year-old virgin male with a 16-year-old virgin female wherein I confidently stated that I was a firm believer in free love way back in... well, it was a long time ago.

Hint: The meme Make love, not war was popping up here, there, and I'm told, even over there.      

The young woman in question... 

By the by and for the record, I have it on good authority that she currently self-identifies as cisgender, her pronouns are she/her, thinks her sexual orientation is none of your damn business, that your sexual orientation is none of hers, and that modesty and discretion are virtues worth cultivating. 

The young woman in question's reply was, essentially, "Well, of course, you're a guy." 

While I can't recall her exact words, I do recall her tone. It clearly communicated that she didn't regard me at fault in any way, I couldn't help it, I was just a normal "guy." Guys are extremely creative about rationalizing the fact that most of us are primates in heat — 24x7x365.


In the course of a single lifetime I've witnessed the cultural pendulum swing (pun intended and embraced) from one extreme to the other, at least in the culture I live in (some others not so much). 

Women, long oppressed and suppressed have been set free. They now are free, often encouraged in fact, to release their previously shackled sexuality. Having been blessed by an encounter or two with women who did — in fact, was married to one for 21 years (my late wife) — I couldn't agree more.

However, going from one extreme to the other, rapidly, has its downsides. 

{You need to squeeze a few more cliches into this column.}     

Thanks, Dana. I don't know what I'd do without you. 


In light of the conversation that began this missive, but primarily because of my (Warning: fresh cliche ahead) "lived experience" since, I've arrived at two conclusions that are not currently popular in some circles. 

First, free love ain't free. 

Despite what you may have heard, men and women are in some fundamental physical, mental, emotional, etceterical ways (fortunately) quite different from each other. 

And one person's casual one-night stand is another person's emotional crisis. 

{You've got a keen eye for the obvious, sir!}

Depends on who ya ask. A sexy senior citizen with a modicum of wisdom and an eye for common sense would likely agree with me. A given Wokie would stamp Pasty Patriarch, cancel immediately on my file and forward it to the Intersectional Inquisition.   


Second, consider the ongoing epidemic of illegitimate parents. Ask all the kids of all ages being raised/having been raised without a mom or dad — or both — in the picture what the price of free love is. 

{Wait-wait-wait. Free love merely refers to enjoying sex without guilt or having to submit to stale cultural conventions.}  
   
I don't have a problem with that per se, however, if the law of unintended consequences swoops in things can get ugly, and fast. For example, an STD is your problem, well, you and your partners, and they and their partners, and...

{Enough already!}

Unwanted progeny however is more the fruit of your loins problem than yours or your partners. 

He/she/they weren't planned for, didn't ask to be here, and are unlikely to be fully mature till they're at least 25 or so. Kids with a mom and a dad in the picture have the best chance of surviving and thriving. "Follow the science," we are told, to which I would add, and follow the common sense.  

{Fruit of your loins? Seriously dude? Anyway, what should we do? Here's another cliche, you can't turn back the clock.} 


I'm not suggesting/hoping for a return to the conventional American morality of the 1950s. I merely wish to point out that our (cliche alert) actions have consequences, sometimes unpleasant ones. 

And that given what's being called a mental health crisis, and no shortage of STDs and unwanted pregnancies despite cheap and easily available condoms and other birth control methods, that we've tossed out the tot with the Jacuzzi water and...

{You've turned that phrase into a cliche over the years.} 

Good. We should all give a bit of thought to dreary old virtues like prudence, modesty, and delayed gratification. The culture (and life) you save may be your own.

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day


Scroll down to share this column or access previous ones. If you enjoy my work and the fact I don't run advertisements or sell merchandise, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal or a credit/debit card.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Facebook or TwitterI post my latest column on Saturdays and other people's work on other days.

  
   

Friday, August 27, 2021

A New Republican Party?

 And a neo-republican movement


This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. Reading via monitor/tablet is recommended for maximum enjoyment.  

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Intended for H. sapiens that are — in the words of the late, great bon vivant and polymath, Professor Y. Bear — "Smarter [and cooler] than the av-er-age bear." 
Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlereader  

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." -Aesop


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

I've been threatening to explain what I mean by neoneoconservatism for a while now. 

I've decided to banish that term, replace it with the word neorepublicanism, and announce that not only is it my intention to champion a neorepublican movement, I also intend to make it the governing philosophy of the (alleged) Republican party

{Odd... I must have missed the press release announcing the date and time of the press conference. I'll bet the world is all... atwitter.} 

I see what you did there, Dana. And speaking of twits, I've decided to join the warring flocks. 

Dana shudders in revulsion. 

{Have you switched meds again and/or started seeing a new shrink?} 

Fear not. I'll use Twitter the same way I use Facebook, to announce my newest column and post interesting content created by others in search of new readers, perhaps to eventually promote a new Republican party. 

I have no plans to get into bloodless battles from a safe distance with my fellow birds but I invite anyone and everyone to attack me as mercilessly as they please.  

Gentlereaders are welcome to virtually kick me instead of actually kicking their pets, employees, children, themselves, "partners," etceterers. 

{I've noticed your columns don't have a comment section.}

No comment. 


As to altering the philosophy of the (allegedly) Republican party, given that both parties are chock full of careerist hacks at all levels whose primary purpose is to get and remain elected to anything that will spare them having to find employment in the real world...  

Well, my frequent use of the terms Republicrat and Depublican clearly and efficiently makes my point. A hack is a hack is a hack. 

America is, by definition, and by the design of the Founding Pasty Patriarchs (FPPs), supposed to be a republic. According to my Merriam-Webster app, a republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.      

The FPPs, having been aware of the many downsides of direct democracy, created a republic that, despite its many flaws and missteps, has lasted nearly 250 years and resulted in the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. I would remind my gentlereaders that the current border crisis is not about people trying to get out of the country.  

And (so far) 51% of the Citizens of the Republic have yet to get together and vote to behead the other 49%.

So far.  


As to the tenets of neorepublicanism, since it's my column I get to quote myself.

"I want the playground to have minimum rules and maximum fun. I want just enough rules to give everyone an equal shot at some swing time and neutralize the bullies." -me

Currently, thinkers on the right, conservatives and libertarians, are thrashing out the details of what constitutes the principles of what many refer to as the new right or some similar term with a similar meaning. Forging an updated fusion of the various factions of the right ain't gonna be easy. I'd like to suggest that the unsexy proverb, live and let live, guide the struggle. 

Personally, I'd like a (new and improved!) Republican Party to be the party of, in Roger Scruton's words, "... people who love something actual and want to retain it." 

Such as the traditional family... but, finding loving, rational solutions to support the children of illegitimate or nontraditional parents.  

Such as religious freedom, "No, you don't have to bake a cake that promotes something you think is a sin." 

Such as what I call real social security, a cradle to grave system that you, your government, and your employer contribute to wherein you make the spending decisions, not a well-meaning (or not) Swamp dwelling bureauon. The sort of system that Singapore set up roughly a half-century ago that's still going strong. 

Such as federalism, as envisioned by the FPPs. If a given state votes to legalize or outlaw something not covered by federal law or the Constitution, that's their right. For example, while I would vote for limited abortion rights, I don't think the Supremes should legislate from the bench by inventing rights. 

Follow this columnist for further details. 

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day


Scroll down to share this column or access previous ones. If you enjoy my work and the fact I don't run advertisements or sell merchandise, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal or a credit/debit card.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Facebook or TwitterI post my latest column on Saturdays and other people's work on other days.