PLAN D

(I am not an economist, but neither are 99% of those who comment about the economy, so here goes.)

We have been told the American economy, confronted with a 10% or so unemployment rate, is not in good shape. I am not sure exactly what standard is being used to determine our "not in good shape" rating. When I travel about, and see roads crowded with SUV's and Hummers and other expensive cars, and packed restaurants and hotels and theaters and ballparks and airports, it doesn't look as if we are not in good shape. I guess we wouldn't be saying that if the unemployment rate were at, say, 2% (although the economy would not be in good shape to those 2% unemployed, would it?). In some countries (France and Germany, for example), I understand a 10% unemployment rate is considered pretty good. But for the purpose of this post, let's agree we're economically hurting.

Stimulus giveaway programs that were intended to fix the problem, have not yet done so. More stimulus plans are on the table, though some pundits allegedly wiser than I am predict they will exacerbate rather than ameliorate the situation. Everyone is seeking a nirvana-type plan...and I have it!

I call it "PLAN D." Why Plan D? Why not? They are called stimulus plans, aren't they, and they haven't stimulated a darn thing...other than more misnamed stimulus plans.

The prime reason we are considered to be hurting is that some of the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, among us cannot afford the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care, transportation, education. Let's call those items the Package.

Step One: The government should calculate a reasonable annual cost of the Package for the average American...say, $20,000... print currency and give that amount to each American on January 1 of each year. With our population of about 320 million, that would total 6.4 trillion dollars. Otherwise, the government stays out of the economy. Net result: immediate solution to the needs of the needy without increasing the size and cost of government.

Would that currency have any gold in Fort Knox to back it up? No, but who thinks about, cares about, or actually knows, the amount of gold backing up those crumpled dollar bills in their pockets. It will be like Monopoly money, exchangeable for goods and services...which is what the whole purpose of money is, no?

Would some astute economic wizard sitting in Kakamoon not want to sell his goods in America because there is no gold to back its currency? I don't know why he wouldn't since he could buy all sorts of stuff here and, in short order, probably around the world.

Would Plan D drive up the prices for items in the Package? Perhaps, a bit...and next year's Plan D payments will be appropriately adjusted.

Would the sudden inlux of trillions of dollars of currency drive up inflation? The influx and the possible effects of it will be reduced by the elimination of payments under current welfare and benefit programs. And think of the enormous savings in shutting down all those bureaucracies and agencies.

Would Plan D entice a few to work less because their necessities are already provided for? Perhaps. Might be a good thing...more leisure time, less stress, more enjoyment of life.

STEP TWO: There is no Step two.

There are also no income taxes to pay for Plan D since the plan doesn't cost the government anything. And no big costly government bureaucracy required to run the program.

I suspect and hope that somewhere in ther hearts, most economic pundits recognize that the free enterprise system works best. History has proven that to any honest thinker. Bygiving free rein to American entrepeneurs, Plan D gets as close to the free enterprise system as we are ever likely to get.

ENTER THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Man is a composite of two elements: body and mind. The spectrum of human existence looks like this:
-----------------/----------------------------/------------------

BODY................ BODY/MIND..........................MIND

At each moment of life, man exists somewhere on the spectrum.

The BODY part of the spectrum manifests in the doing of primarily physical, material, concrete matters...what I refer to as management of life matters: buying food and preparing meals, shopping for clothing and household goods, cleaning house, paying bills, etc. Activities requiring a significant amount of physical activity and a lesser amount of mental effort, much of which is automatized due to its repetitive nature. For those who see it as a purely physical activity, sex falls into this part of the spectrum as well.

The BODY/MIND part of the spectrum involve activities that require both physical and mental effort....education, both teaching and studying, the medical and legal fields, journalism, business, science, etc. In this part of the spectrum, mental activity generally entails a measure of creativity, abstraction and responsibility.

Which leaves us with the MIND part of the spectrum. Of course, there is no human mind without a body, but as we move closer and closer to the right end of the spectrum, there is virtually no concern with or feeling of the physical. The mind rises to the outermost level of its magnificent potential, contemplating the glories and sublime exquisiteness of life in all its manifestations. Music feeds it, the arts transport it, and it soars free and whole and untroubled into the expansive grandeur. Beauty surrounds.

Here, spiritual soul mates connect in unyielding and enduring oneness, virtues of justice and honor and good will and humanity gleam brilliantly pure, and the awareness of where you are fills your soul with ecstasy. You are alive in matchless serenity.

You have entered the spiritual realm.

Beware, you may not wish to return.

IS THIS REALLY REAL?

FBI: Are you the leader of your group? The other guy says he is.

MAFIA: I am, you can take my word on that.

FBI: We are willing to cut the number of guns we have if you will cut the number of guns you have.

MAFIA: We could go along with that if you get rid of the bulletproof vests you have.

FBI: Why do you want that?

MAFIA: Because your having them makes it seem as if you're worried we might shoot at you, and that makes us feel bad.

FBI: Don't want you to feel bad. We can get rid of them. We want to be able to come in from tine to time to count the number of guns you have.

MAFIA: We could agree with that and if you give us 3 months notice and you come in not more than once every 5 years.

FBI: Why do you need advance notice?

MAFIA: So that we can get them ready and make it is easy for you to count.

FBI: That's nice.

MAFIA: And we can count your guns?

FBI: Any time.

MAFIA: What about the Cosa Nostra? They have a lot of guns.

FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.

MAFIA: What about the Malos Rangos? They have a lot of guns.

FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.

MAFIA: What about the Tribig Gundas? They have a lot of guns.

FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet. Shall we smile and shake hands on our deal?

MAFIA: Sure.

FBI: Big day for peace. The world will applaud us.

IRRATIONAL IRRELEVANCE

I 've been a sports enthusiast for years, and I have always thought that when it comes to racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, the professional athlete has it more right than any other group.

When the black Christian point guard steals the basketball and sees one of his teammates under the basket, he does not think "Shou ld I pass the ball to that rich, white, Jewish guy , or should I help my Buddhist teammate from Hong Kong get his fair share of the points?" If he is a winning team player, the only thing he thinks is "Here's the ball. Score." And when he does score, the two hands high fiving are not a black one and a white one but simply two teammates congratulating each other.

And the reason for that is simple: It is because all of that racial, ethnic and religious stuff is irrelevant. Was there discrimination against Jackie Robinson when he first came up to play in the major leagues? Yes, until players saw how good he was and that he could help win games and that the color of his skin was irrelevant.

It is a good lesson for all of us to learn. Almost always, a person's skin color, culture and ethnic heritage are totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion. "I love learning about ancient lands and religions, so I talk often with my Muslim neighbor from what once was Persia." That is relevant identification. "My Muslim neighbor broke the lawn mower I lent him" is irrelevant identification.

It would be a good lesson for the government to learn. Laws that require me to hire a fair cross section of racial groups, for example, promote irrelevant identification. Race is not a factor in productivity. Welfare programs targeting particular ethnic groups promote irrelevant identification since poverty touches every group. And all promote rather than lessen discrimination.

You don't identify me as a brown eyed person and you shouldn't identify me as a black person. I am one of those...but which one is almost always irrelevant.

WATCH OUT

We have become a spectator society. We watch rather than do.

An average American watches tv over 4 hours per day. If he watched no tv, he (or she) would extend his life by 3 extra months of awake time per year...equivalent to extending his life expectancy by 20 years!

We watch sporting events. Major league baseball and the National Football League alone have attendance of almost 100 million each year, with over 32,000 at every baseball game and over 67,000 at every football game.

We watch movies. The number of movie tickets sold in the U.S. in 2008 exceeded 1-1/3 billion.

We read a lot of fiction. Yes, reading is a form of watching... watching the characters in the book experiencing life. Years ago, when I was in the military, I wrote a book review column for the Stars and Stripes, and so I spent a lot of time reading. A good friend of mine, a musician hippie type from California, asked me why I read so much. "Whatever pleasures you get from reading how fictional characters live their made-up stories," he told me, "are trivial to the pleasures you can get by living those stories yourself. Come with me to the pub," he urged, "and I'll prove it to you." He was right.

Yes, I know, sometimes there is something to learn by watching. Sometimes we are too tired to do anything and there is a measure of enjoyment in watching. But as I learned years ago, life shines in the doing.

There is one thing we don't usually watch: our lives flying by.

THE PRINCIPLE ERROR

On a television news show, the issue was raised by a Republican pundit that President Obama was now saying he would do something that he said in the campaign he would absolutely never do. The liberal pundit on the show countered with, "I never heard Republicans complain when President George W. Bush did a similar thing so they have nothing to complain about now."

Ouch! That defense offered by the liberal pundit is a classic logical error. It is an "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person") attack on the arguer rather than on the argument. An attack on the person on the other side of an argument does not negate the argument made by that person. An argument must stand or fall on its own merits. To counter an argument, it must be shown that the facts offered up by the arguer are mistaken or do not support the conclusion...in this case, that Obama is not going against what he said in the campaign, or if he is, it is not an impropriety. It matters not one whit whether the argument is being made by a child, a criminal, someone who is insane, or by a political party that has done something nefarious in the past. Whatever the shortcomings of the arguer, the argument must be countered on its own terms.

So why then do we so often hear ad hominem attacks during a discussion of some issue or other, like "What would you know about it?" or "That's really funny coming from you of all people" or, as in this case, "You guys can't complain, you've done the same thing"?

I think it is because we are not as principled a people as we once were. A principle is a general idea about life that serves as a guideline for living and for our views of what is right and wrong, such as "You should always be honest," or "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything." But if a principle is to be used as the basis for action, it ought be clear and well-defined... and it ought be something you can prove is right.

For example: Let's say one of your principles is "It is good to help the needy." That is a fairly commonly held principle. Perhaps your parents told you that when you were a child. Perhaps you heard it in a sermon. Perhaps you saw and enjoyed a movie about Robin Hood, who was portrayed as a hero for "robbing from the rich and giving it to the poor." So when the government today seeks to pass a federal program to give some benefits to some perceived needy group, you might jump on the bandwagon.

But to know whether your principle clearly applies in this case, you would first need to answer these questions:

Why is it good to help the needy? Who exactly are the needy? Does it matter what they are needy of? Does it matter why exactly they are not in a position to provide themselves with what they need? Should everyone help the needy or only those that can afford it? And how is that determined? Is it appropriate and constitututional for the government to implement a program that will force some to pay additional taxes for that program? Should your principle apply only to voluntary charitable giving to the needy? Etc. etc. etc.

It would take time to study and answer these questions, time many would prefer not to expend. Their principles remain unsubstantiated by reason and fact and logic and they base their positions on moral and political issues with personal, unreliable feelings...feelings that are always "right" simply because we feel them. Ever notice that political pundits never never ever change their minds or admit they were wrong.

So, rather than proving that President Obama's changing his mind t is not per se wrong and a violation of a proper principle, it is easier to blurt out some ad hominem complaint against the other side. After all, they would say, "It doesn't feel right for you to complain when you guys have done the same thing."

What about "two wrongs don't make a right"? Not feeling that one today.

HAPPY NEW DAY

I would guess that most people, given a choice between the familiar and the strange, would choose the familiar. Agree? Take out books from the library by familiar authors, eat in familiar restaurants, stay at familiar hotels, drive familiar routes, etc. The familiar, or well known, is associated with a desire that things go in the future the way they went in the past...and the comfortable and safe feeling that they probably will.

The strange, or new and unknown, is the seeing of what you haven't seen before, the hearing of what you haven't heard before, the thinking about what you haven't thought about before. It is associated with a desire to discover new realities..and the exciting potential of touching your spirit and expanding your life.

The choice you make between the familiar and the strange is life-forming. It affects not only what you do but, perhaps more importantly, how you feel about what you do. We feel little glory when we triumph without risk. We do not gain much self-esteem when the choices we make today are the same exact ones we made yesterday. There are fewer thrills and eurekas in the familiar than in the new.

The familiar is mind numbing. It is in our nature to automatize the doing of things we have done over and over again before. The strange piques interest and excites our senses.

Your daily choice.