This is where I get to rant and rave about the inequities and injustices in the world, and how the Republicans are to blame for most of them. Or it's where I would do that if I were still a hot-headed 20-year old. Instead, I plan to discuss the issues analytically and dispassionately, and, in the end, conclude with even greater force of persuasion, that the Republicans are to blame. This will be done with an over-reliance on sentences with numerous clauses that are still formally grammatical, such as the last one. However, that awaits some free time ... my postings have been a bit infrequent. December 2007: A running list of issues that a progressive society would address more fully: 1.) the deportation of people for non-major crimes. Cruel and unusual punishment? For that matter, if someone has been here since before age 10, even for major crimes, is it just to deport them to a country in which they no longer belong? 2.) lines at polling places for major elections - long lines seem to be disproportionately in poorer areas 3.) is funding for CDC adequate - particularly for epidemiologic investigation? 4.) a sane drug policy, likely involving decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs. The effects of demand for illegal drugs have included very high levels of crime and corruption in Mexico, Caribbean and Central American countries, and of course, the Andean producing countries. I think a case can be made that decriminalization would reduce these 'side' effects. 5.) addressing illegal immigration head on with serious penalties for employing illegal immigrants, made possible by a real national identification system, and accompanied by a real system for increasing legal immigration and improving working conditions so that jobs in agriculture and construction are appealing to those living here.

January 2004:

In a column in the Jan 16 NYT (sometime back in 2004 or so?), Paul Krugman raises the issue of whether the Bush Administration has honest motives but is misguided in its policy prescriptions, or whether the administration is dishonest and not motivated by the greater good. For a long time, I have felt that many, if not most, conservatives on the national stage are merely misguided. But the Bush Administration has me having my doubts, given that it seems willing to make whatever arguments and often false statements it likes to push forward its aims. On the other hand, perhaps their actions are not so different than those of Roosevelt in doing what he could to support the British despite popular opposition and, in my limited understanding, despite the illegality of some of his actions.

Some things I've been thinking about recently:

Something needs to be done to address the fact that a large portion of the mentally ill in this country end up in prisons without care.

The 'No Child Left Behind Act' is a nightmare from the perspective of statistical measurement.

The Bush administration's refusal to extend the international security force beyond Kabul has been short-sighted and stubborn for no apparent reason.

Here's an idea for a guiding principle behind a governmental health care financing system and governmental social security/pension plans: if we take these responsibilities off of companies, we create a level playing field, in which companies do not have to compete based on non-wage related benefits, and in which hiringi and employing a worker is less costly, in particular one in which it may be easier to hire another worker instead of forcing the one you have to work overtime. Loosen the labor market, as many claim is the reason for lower unemployment in the U.S. compared to Europe, and at the same time ensure a basic social support system.

If the Republicans were truly interested in running Washington as a business, perhaps they would fund the department that brings in the revenue sufficiently so that the revenue owed to the business was collected. In addition to making sure the IRS responds to questions and treats taxpayers reasonably (which the Republican Congress demagogued back in the late 90's with little evidence that the IRS was mistreating people), we need to substantially increase the IRS' ability to pursue tax cheating and fraud. This was drastically reduced due to Republican measures in the last decade.

How about opponents of the estate tax stop lying about the numbers and characteristics of individuals subject to the tax. The thousands of family farms and businesses that these folks claim have been broken up by the tax do not exist.

The Times reported a few days ago (Jan 27 or so) hidden away toward the back of the international section, that the Bush administration's 2005 budget request for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in the third world was being scaled back from the well-publicized commitment made a few years ago. Granted, this amount is still better than we had been doing, but a commitment's a commitment, unless circumstances change drastically in which case reasonable people realize that changes can be made. But in this case, AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria are just as much a problem as before. So how about we stick to that commitment?

Here's an idea both conservatives and liberals will both dislike and like all at the same time. How about a revenue-neutral abolition of corporate taxes in favor of increased income and estate taxes for the rich. I'm not an accountant, but it seems like it's harder for individuals to do fancy accounting to hide income, move abroad, etc., than it is for companies to shift profits and incorporate offshore. The share of federal tax revenue from corporate taxes has dropped to a very low level historically (under 10% I think), so maybe we should eliminate them all together and tax the money when it gets distributed to owners and shareholders.