Transitioning from Anger to Policy

For the most part, the Occupy Wall Street protests and all their derivatives have elicited in me a small range of responses that fall between eye rolling and mild distaste. While the significant and unapologetic narcissism of the movement would like its audience to believe that this is a unique and special movement, the only unique aspect of this particular iteration of angry, young Americans (accompanied the hip Baby Boomers clinging to their own 1960s  relevance) is the spread of the movement and its detachment from any one particular event. Otherwise, this protest could easily be just another hodgepodge of slogans thrown in front of any particular meeting of the IMF, World Bank, or the G8 leaders. In terms of novelty, and the ability to actually generate some degree of change, the OWS populist uprising has thus far come up flat.

While passing by the Occupy Irvine encampment today, I noticed a sign that read “Don’t Just Honk” and felt compelled to consider that statement for a moment or two. The Occupy Irvine protesters were not just honking. The action they were taking was staging this low grade occupation of the lawn of the Irvine Civic Center. However, in terms of the actual effect that will be achieved by honking, as opposed to what the protesters themselves were doing, there will be essentially the same outcome. The Occupy Irvine protest, in similarity with the OWS protest, has done nothing more than complain about one evil or another that they can blame everything on while attempting to increase the size of their Facebook groups. Being Orange County, it is somewhat amusing to note that the Occupy Irvine protest tends to take on a much more Ron Paul style “End the Fed” message than their other national counterparts.

In some ways, this outlines the main problem I have with these kind of OWS or Tea Party movements. They are populism in a very dangerous form. When they do translate into slogan based policy, we end up with the kind of disastrous results that we’ve been achieving with the Tea Party in congress. Rather than trying to solve the problem of persistent unemployment, in many ways a cause of these OWS protests, congress has been hijacked by a bunch of slogans about the deficit. There has been no honest discussion about how to solve long term deficit problems. Instead, there has been a haphazard destruction of discretionary spending programs without much reduction in the long term budget outlook. We start looking less like a reasoned republican democracy, and more like a populist South American nation that throws bananas at the wall until one of them transforms into a functioning republic. Often, none of them transform anything and the real losers in the end are the same people who put the populists in office.

The reason people like myself get agitated by movements like OWS and the Tea Party is because it is almost impossible to take an honest policy position that occupies less than 200 words, let alone less than 140 characters. The only slogan I know how to give that is concise is “I don’t know yet. Let me explore that issue until I can make an informed opinion.” In person, when I’m talking about economic topics, it is usually a minimum of ten minutes, and I have to spend extra time attempting to infer what degree of prior knowledge they have that I am drawing on to make my point. None of this would be popular with the OWS movement, for the most part, since it would involve an attention span that was greater than a piece of cardboard with sharpie on it and a Like button on Facebook.

That being said, there have been interesting ideas that have come out of OWS that tend to get buried in the cacophony of self-importance. Among them, I heard of an ex-accountant attempting to advocate that the maximum compensation at publicly traded firms be set at fifty times the median wage of the firm’s employees. (She couldn’t fit that on a cardboard sign, so she was trying to hand out pamphlets.)  This is a significant policy proposal that deals with a real problem in the compensation of executives and it deserves its day in the light. Essentially, this rule would attempt to solve a principle-agent problem that exists within publicly traded firms in how executive salaries are set. I’ve often believed that the very high level of executive compensation has a great deal to do with the principle-agent problem whereby the executives are able to pay themselves the profits of a firm, instead of those profits being returned to shareholders. Of course, it is also the case the CEOs work harder than the average person and deserve a much higher level of compensation than most people. However, there are issues that go much further beyond the marginal productivity of CEOs that have not been honestly addressed.

Furthermore, sloganeers from both OWS and the Tea Party demand changes in the way taxes are levied. However, in order for actual change to take place we need to have honest discussion about the details of our tax system. It seems generally agreed that the tax system should be progressive, but by exactly how much? We also don’t think that the most desperate among us should have to pay taxes, but exactly where is that cut off and at what marginal rate should taxes be introduced? These are real questions that need real answers. They deserve in a reasonable world much more than a line on a cardboard sign or a man dressed up as Paul Revere. I tend to advocate for the following system. Let their be a VAT as the main collection mechanism of taxes. Then, issues a rebate such that the 10th income percentile pays no taxes, effectively creating a negative tax system for persons in the lowest income decile, but keeping the marginal effective tax rate low. Then, to fulfill the roll of progressivity, place a flat income tax starting at the 90th percentile (which is a little under $150,000 per year). The argument that the rich “do not pay their fair share” currently is an obscene argument.  The top decile currently pays almost 70% of the Federal income tax burden (I realize that the income tax is not the only form of tax and that there are other taxes that burden the middle class significantly, but this is not a valid argument for the rich don’t pay their fair share. Rather, it’s an argument in favor of simple and honest tax collection.).  If the OWS and Tea Party groups put down their megaphones and cardboard and actually demand a reasoned discussion across the political spectrum, we might be able to get a decent taxation system within our lifetimes. A simpler and more reasoned tax system would help greatly with both the problems of how to finance a long term deficit, and how much each person should have to pay given their place in our social structure. Instead of asking the 1% to pay more, ask everyone to sit down and determine the long term path of government revenues and services.

In conclusion, this idea of coming together and actually getting things done greatly highlights the difference between our current political era and the era of the mid and late 90s, and before. Some of the more memorable pictures I have in my mind of the Clinton administration were the pictures of the gigantic tables Clinton would set up at the White House. At these tables, he would bring together thinkers and players from across a massive spectrum and they would talk into the early hours of the morning. They would sit there, and they would get the very hard, nuanced, and detailed task of managing our nation done. Furthermore, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill would engage in bitter, though necessary, political sparing, and yet still be able to share lunch or a drink as human beings and Americans together. When we elected the current administration, we elected it on the slogan of “Hope and Change.” Perhaps next time, it would be better to elect our politicians on their ability to drink coffee until the wee hours of the morning, and their ability to share a drink with co-workers. However, in order to get those kind of politicians, we as voters first need to commit to an ethos that goes above and beyond cardboard in Zuccotti Park.

However, I will gladly yield and say that the OWS protests did some good if this particular writing actually has an impact on anything outside my own ego. I did, after all, write this because I saw a sign that said “Don’t just honk.”

The Terrorists Won (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Halal)

Before I left for Irvine, there were essentially two things on my mind that I had pondered in this blog and elsewhere. The first thing I was considering was where I was going to shop for groceries, and how said grocery store might rip me off. The other thing I was considering was how ridiculous (and, though I rarely use the term, I believe Un-American) the Park51 Mosque Controversy was. After today, however, I am finally able to combine the two. It’s amazing how things come back around.

I arrived in Irvine a little over two weeks ago, and in that time have now tried about four grocery stores. I, of course, tried the Albertsons that was directly across the street from my apartment first. It’s certainly okay, and is a standard generic big box kind of grocery story (though not particularly big by most standards). The prices, after I have now had time to compare a bit, were not exactly perfect either, and the quality style there is certainly generic. I’ll likely continue to pick a few things up there from time to time, just because of the easy access, and occasional deals. I also walked into the Trader Joe’s in the University Center and then walked back out. I still don’t exactly see what the attraction to Trader Joe’s is, but it was crowded and just wasn’t for me.

Once I got my OCTA bus pass however, that opened up several new opportunities. OCTA 79 runs past my apartment, and essentially goes to Fashion Island in Newport (where it links to a lot of other coastal buses) and up Culver Drive eventually into Tustin. Along Culver, there were two stores that caught my eye. The first was 99 Ranch, the Asian supermarket. I liked 99 Ranch (especially the meat and seafood), but it wasn’t general enough and it was farther away than what is now, after today, my ultimate choice. I’d probably only go there again if I needed something very particular that only they would have (which isn’t as much as it might seem, unless I really have a desire to eat some chicken feet).

In a little (by OC standards) shopping area called University Park Shopping Center, there’s a market called Wholesome Choice. I initially thought it might by some kind of organic style Whole Foods spin off type place. So today, I wanted a kinder and gentler body soap because my skin is drying out, so I hopped on the bus after class and headed out to Wholesome Choice. When I got there, I was overwhelmed with how great this market was.

The produce section was full of diverse and fresh foods, at low prices by any standard. There was a variety of fresh cuts of meat, also at great prices, and each of the aisles contained a broad selection of foods. (I found the aisle dedicated to different spices to be something worth another trip in the future.) I walked up and down every aisle, and even though this was not the Whole Foods/Organic market experience I was looking for, they had an excellent soap that was in fact what I was seeking. It also had a gigantic hot deli section that puts Whole Foods to shame (and at such low prices!). As I was checking out, the clerk noticed the big UCI letters on my t-shirt, and in that sort of distant Persian way, asked if I was a student. When I said I was, he looked at my student ID and gave me 5% off while the bagger took care in loading the reusable bag that I brought with me. I was living my ultimate super market fantasy.

However, this particular market experience comes with a profound twist. The excellent meat section that I spoke about served halal meats. The labels on most of the products were written in both English and Arabic. Their specialty house bread is a Persian flat bread. The workers there were Asian, but they weren’t Chinese, Japanese, or Korean like at 99 Ranch. Instead, many seemed to be Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, and so on. On their website, Wholesome Choice claims to be an international specialty market, and it certainly is that with the wide range of foods and spices available. However, it was fairly clear that this was, though not advertised as such, an Islamic oriented super market. Certainly it was not wholly Islamic, and it may be unfair to characterize it as such as it was wonderful outside of whatever orientation it may have, but it was very clear that a very significant portion of its customer base and employees were Muslims.

So, the question remains, should I run terrified out of Wholesome Choice because of their audacity in presenting me with halal foods (at such good prices!)? Does the presence of a mosque near the not-to-far-away and densely used Spectrum center mean that I should be looking over my shoulder for men with bombs strapped to their chests? An organization such as the Islamic Center of Irvine must be evil, right? Especially with it giving presentations about such universally reviled things as “Parenting That Connects” and displaying such hateful Islamic quotes like “If someone does good for / to you, return the favor; if you can not recompense, then (at least) pray for the person. [Nasā‘ī]” How should I feel about all this as I shop for my delicious Persian flat bread? They put a super market and a mosque in my backyard!

In my short time thus far in Irvine, I’ve encountered more diverse cultures than I’ve ever managed to encounter in my entire life. In spite of the conservative, rich, white Orange County stereotype, Irvine is a middle class, cultural tower of babel. In Northern California, and especially back in rural Humboldt County, the people there liked to scream at the top of their lungs about diversity. There were seminars, and talks, and everyone would go marching in the streets to celebrate diversity or pride or whatever the buzz of the day was going to be. This has all covered for the fact that Northern California is vastly segmented, and despite all the talk of diversity is mostly monocultural and segregated. I had been exposed to the theory of living harmoniously with other peoples, but never the reality.

So what is the reality of living with Muslims? Well, first of all, the reality should have an adjective added immediately to it. The questions is then: what is the reality of living with American Muslims? The reality is not the scary, faceless group that we’ve come to despise. Here at UCI, there is a fairly decent sized group of Muslim women students on campus. You can tell that they are Muslims because they are wearing head coverings (though not always and many will occasionally go without). These are not the restrictive, anti-feminine burkas that we’ve been told by the media are being used to oppress the Muslim woman, but are instead beautifully designed coverings with simple patterns in them. It’s true that they are certainly not very flashy, but they do have a certain simple elegance to them that is often missed in the bright, sexualized American style of today. It is, however, a style that states loudly, with its choice of interesting color, that moderate Islam is alive in America today.

So, this is how I came to love Wholesome Choice so much. The faceless, bearded mobs of lurking, sleeper cell terrorists are quickly replaced with model images of good neighbors looking to hold to their values and traditions. Islamic tradition seems to suggest that there is a value in not being too loud or standing out too much. Perhaps this is why so many fail to see what I saw today in Wholesome Choice, a moderate group of people going about their daily lives quietly and in peaceful worship of their god. Here is a truly diverse community that doesn’t even seem to be aware of how lucky they are to be this diverse and benefiting from each other’s separate world views.  Strip all pieces of America away that separate us, and all we’re left with is just this market. A market where people from an almost uncountable number of value systems, backgrounds, and races come together and achieve massive mutual benefit.

And if you’re still not convinced that such a world exists in my new favorite grocery, then it is worth noticing that the other significantly sized group that came into the market that day wore yarmulkes. There in the market are two groups that are suppose to hate each other being united unknowingly by the common experience of seeking their daily bread.

Health Care Reform for the Consumer

Alex Tabarrok over at Marginal Revolution has posted in his daily assortment of links a link to a document titled “What Does Health Care Reform Mean for You? : A Consumer’s Guide.” It’s a pretty good read, and attempts at least to take a balanced approach. I was pretty certain that when the Health Care reform bill passed, you could probably fit the number of people that actual understood the legislation (myself being not included in this group) in a small conference room at best.  This seems to be some of the early efforts to post a full description of the effects of the bill. Given that it backs its facts up through CBO and Medicare studies, it’s a pretty convincing argument.

Here are a few keys points that I’ve seen:

• The provisions of the bill fade in so slowly that there will be “many opportunities for voters to express their will before most provisions become law.” Even if President Obama earns a second term in office, he will not still be in office when the Cadillac insurance tax comes into effect in 2019.
• Speaking of that Cadillac tax, it’s not indexed to inflation, so eventually all insurance plans will be subject to the tax.
• The argument that was made that people will opt to be fined rather than purchase insurance seems to be pretty much entirely true. “If you fail to insure, you will be fined — with the penalty rising to $695 ($2,085 per family) in 2016 or 2.5% of your adjusted gross income, whichever is greater.” However, “You may be able to buy insurance you cannot now afford. Beginning in 2014, for example, a couple with an income of twice the poverty level (currently $29,000) will be able to buy insurance for an annual premium no higher than 6.3% of their income ($1,827).” Since $695 is still clearly less than $1827, people that are healthy, yet impoverished, will still likely choose to pay the fine.
• The new sets of regulations and taxes are very, very complicated. The array of mandated benefits, taxes, fines, risk-pooled exchanges, etc. create an almost insurmountable maze of policy that I doubt most common folks will be able to understand. That’s a shame, because this bill will drastically change the lives of pretty much everyone. The uncertainty in business circles about how the new law will impact them is warranted.
• You have to submit proof of insurance with your income tax return, which is kind of a bummer. Hopefully, they’ll be quick on making ways for you to “e-file” the proof of insurance. Though, they will have four more years to get that ready (mandate starts 2014).
• The didn’t fix the whole pre-tax/post-tax problem that makes employer provided health insurance much cheaper than individually purchased health insurance. In other words, your health insurance will still be chained to your employer, and you won’t be able to reasonably take it with you.

I’ll probably read the rest of the document later on to get into some of the details. According to their website, “The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control.” I shouldn’t be too surprised then that they come down with a fairly negative take on the reform then given their libertarian bias. However, it’s hard to argue with a lot of that document. It makes an effort to be fact based, which I appreciate.

Religious Liberty: The Home Game

Since I try to live my life by judging things from primary sources, here’s a fun game you can play with the kids on a Friday Night:

1. Go to Google Maps: http://maps.google.com
2. In the bar, type: 45–51 Park Place, Manhattan, New York City
3. Now, zoom in to the street level and look at the big Burlington Coat Factory sign.
4. Now, walk to the ground zero area from there in the street view.
5. Finally, go around the table and ask everyone how many religious liberties and American values should be sacrificed in order to prevent a mosque Islamic Community Center (like those things where they play basketball that all the Mormons build, but not as sharply dressed?) from being built inside that Burlington Coat Factory

Bonus points: Try to see if you can see Ground Zero while standing in front of the building. (Hint: You can’t.)

A wise man once told me that there is real good and evil in the world, but the key to strength was knowing what was truly evil, and what wasn’t. I’d like to be able to take comfort in that the fact that even 10 brain cells being wasted on this issue means we’ve run out of problems. However, we haven’t run out of problems. We just seem to have lost track of who our real enemies are.