Paleo: Deliciously Effective, but Missing Key Ingredients

I have several good friends on the Paleo diet, and we have a running dialogue on the merits. I believe they've got the "mostly meat and vegetables" core approach exactly right, but the "no grains" argument is problematic. I want to believe because the results are convincing but just can't quite get all the way there because of several logic flaws I'll explore here. My conclusions:

• Eating a no-grain diet works not because whole grains are inherently bad -- in fact they have many good properties -- but because it isn't realistic to consistently eat grains in our modern diet and society without consuming lots of simple and processed grains. It's a lot easier to eat a good vegetable, fruit or protein than it is a good carb. If you eat less grains, there's an overwhelming likelihood you will eat less bad carbs, which means you eat less simple sugars and calories, which means you lose weight and feel better. It's like the old Marxists used to say about capitalism: it works in practice, but the theory is flawed. Both the market and the body are omnivorous, and though not everything natural that goes in is flawless, they're equipped to handle a lot, especially that which hasn't been synthetically engineered.

• Animal fats can't be all good, it must depend on their quantity and quality. Exhibit A is to cook a skinless chicken breast, filet mignon and pork tenderloin in one pan; a chicken quarter, a ribeye and some bacon in another pan; remove the meat, let the drippings settle, and come back at the end of the day. There's no way it's healthy to have the congealed mixture in the second pan coursing through the veins. Many in the paleo crowd give animal fats a blanket thumbs up, and it's just not that simple.

• There's no way around the empirical data on the healthiness of high-grain populations. China and Japan (rice) and Italy (pasta) being the exemplars. They all have much longer life expectancies, lower rates of chronic illness (especially diet-related), and obesity rates that are a fraction of the rest of the world (2% in Japan, 3% in China, 9% in Italy). Correlation is not causation, but it is persuasive evidence when extrapolated among disparate, high-carb cultures.

• Eating only what the caveman ate makes sense only if you jump to the inference that we aren't evolutionarily equipped to eat other things. That's a big jump, it depends on the framing. What if the caveman had a short lifespan in part because of his diet. He ate what he hate because that was available, but what if he was, or came to be, evolutionarily equipped to eat other things not yet available. If the caveman evolved in Africa, does the theory hold that non-African foods have properties we aren't evolved to eat? Surely that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat any of them.

• It's impossible not to notice all the blogs and books promoting paleo and shunning grains are coming from profiteers. Very toned profiteers making strong arguments, but profiteers, nonetheless. Try as I might, I couldn’t find Ivy League support or journal publication on the dangers of grains. In fact, it's the contrary. Thus, logic says if there was strong, consistent physiological evidence against grains, the Harvard School of Public Health, New England Journal of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the College of Cardiologists -- or something of this caliber -- would document it, especially considering it's half of our diet. It lacks credibility. To which the choices then are: a) the fitness community and a handful of rogue nutritionists have overturned a generation of science and beaten the medical community to the punch b) there is a concerted effort on the part of academia and the establishment to ignore the evidence or c) there is no evidence.

Anytime money meets sheer food rigidity -- i.e. entire classes of food are deemed intrinsically bad -- my siren goes off. Welcome to the last half century, littered with this odd phenomenon. The proof is in the pudding of course, and I am in favor of anything that works. Count me as a half-believer.

"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are." -- 18th century gastronome and epicure, Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

2013 Budget: An Insurance Company with a Standing Army

After poring over the 2013 budget, this is the easiest way I can framework to think about what we spend money on. When it comes to government, what we spend money on, of course, is the whole ballgame.

Money in, money out:

• $2.9 trillion revenues (18% of GDP, up from 16% in 2012)
• $3.8 trillion spending (23% of GDP, down from 24% in 2012)

Money out by category (in billions):

o $900 security (DOD, wars, Intel, Homeland, VA, State, nukes)
o $800 Social Security
o $500 Medicare
o $300 Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance
o $600 mandatory (tax credits, welfare, unemployment, etc.)
o $400 discretionary (all government departments)
o $300 interest ($15 trillion x 2%)

By 2020, Obama’s forecast eventually levels off spending at 22% of GDP and revenues at 20%, putting the deficit (2%) below the average growth rate (3%).

(Click to enlarge)



These %'s are going to have to at least go back to our historical averages, and probably slightly higher since we are now so far in debt and since an aging society will inevitably spend more on its healthcare. Since our long-term spending average is 20% of GDP, this is why Obama is proposing 22%. Since our long-term revenues average is 18%, this is why he is proposing 20%. The Paul Ryan budget brings spending down to 20% of GDP and revenues to 18%. The entire argument is over plus or minus 2%.

The $400 billion in discretionary spending -- a reduction of 10% from 2012 -- is what the president has control over without an act of Congress. This proposal drops that component to the lowest share of GDP in 60 years. The GOP's nonsensical rhetoric aside, Obama is positioning himself to be the most budget-hawkish president since Eisenhower.



Based on the grand bargain discussions last Fall, I believe Obama has made clear he is willing to put entitlements on the table if Republicans put at least a reasonable amount of revenues on the table. The share of GDP that we pay in taxes -- both income and corporate -- is the lowest it has been in American history, and is the lowest in the industrialized world.



The budget proposes closing some corporate loopholes and raising some corporate rates to bring the rate up slightly from 1.2% to 2% of GDP. The current 1.2% is down from 1.8% in 2008, is the lowest rate in the country's history, the lowest of any rich nation in the world, and less than half of the OECD average (3.5%).



To generate additional revenue, the budget proposes raising income taxes on the top bracket back to the Clinton rates. This is essentially an increase of 5%, rising from 35% to 39.6%. Thus, someone who makes $1 million and pays $350k in federal income tax today would pay ~$400k. The administration believes preserving incomes for the lower 98% of the country is common sense because a) they are more likely to spend the extra money than stick it in a savings account or brokerage, thus it will better fuel economic growth and b) middle class incomes have been stagnant for two decades while upper class incomes exploded, thus it's a fair deal that benefits exponentially more people.



~~~



Budgets of this nature are as much art as science, and this blueprint from Obama is one of the central reasons I support him. It is sound and reasonable. It seeks harmony and balance at a time when each is in short supply. It doesn't cut so aggressively as to trigger another recession, but is austere enough to reach sustainability in the out years. It is loyal to his campaign promises, and in keeping with his actions since. Its logic is intricate, yet clear.

Now switch your vantage. You're a guy running a business and you make $1 million this year. You will now pay 40% in federal income taxes, another 10% in state and local, and another 15% in assorted taxes on your home, cars, properties, payroll taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes, and a sales tax on anything you buy. You look around, consider yourself a producer for our society, and ponder the eternal quandary: is paying $650k in taxes on the $1 million you made not excessive? If two-thirds is not enough, what is.

It's inarguable that we spend too much money. The question is only whether that inevitably suffocates growth and liberty within a nation founded upon freedom. The government has a solemn duty to spend our money wisely because when they took it they reduced our economic freedom by that exact amount. The problem is that we want to spend like socialists, tax ourselves like libertarians, and run around calling ourselves conservatives. It's intellectually dishonest and completely unsustainable.

Budgets are a statement of values. What you propose spending money on is a direct reflection of your principles. Our budgets -- this one and all in recent memory -- affirm that we value security (25% of all spending), insuring that old people have dignity in retirement (20%), and insuring that the elderly and poor have healthcare (20%). Together, these are two-thirds of all spending. The American government is an insurance company with a standing army.

At some point in the near future, we will have to decide whether we want to invest more in our youth and our nation's hardware, thus planting the seeds for tomorrow's prosperty, or whether we will continue to prioritize being the world's policeman and the health of our oldest and least fortunate. Today's budget says we are not quite ready for the conversation yet.

PP and SGK: Social Media and the Art of Cannibalization

“Is it possible for a woman’s health organization to stay out of the abortion issue and help all women? I don’t know the answer to that yet. What we were doing before was angering the right-to-life crowd. Then, with our decision in December, we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we’re going to make the right-to-life crowd mad all over again. How do we stop doing that?” -- Susan G. Komen board member, John D. Raffaelli



How many abortions would you guess there are each year in the US, and what % of Planned Parenthood’s total budget did Susan G. Komen’s donation comprise?

These are two central pillars to understanding the random, polarizing controversy that went viral this week. Here are the relevant estimates (using round numbers for simplicity):



Of Susan G. Komen’s $100 mm in donations, let’s assume $50 mm comes from pro-lifers and $50 mm from pro-choicers. If just one in ten pro-lifers are adamantly pro-life, then $5 mm of donations are potentially at stake by giving (what they would perceive) is at least part of their gift to the biggest abortion provider in the country. An equally-safe assumption is that there is at least another $5 mm from pro-lifers out there who choose to give to non-SGK charities because of SGK’s affiliation with PP. All of which means at least $10 mm is at stake for SGK, and probably much more than that. $10 mm equates to 100,000 breast exams, or 10x the number SGK funds through PP today. The now-reviled SGK decision essentially boils down to them seeking to exponentially increase their mission, a pretty smart thing to do when your focus is breast cancer, not abortion.

SGK reversed the decision presumably because they believe the fallout from not supporting PP would be greater than what they stood to gain. It may be a quick fix and politically satisfying, but it’s junky logic. It assumes that a sizeable amount of money donated to SGK is predicated upon support for PP, upon SGK being pro-choice, or both. Yet, it took me one minute to determine that SGK’s founder is clearly pro-life, so that can't be it. And if donations to SGK were so contingent upon supporting PP, more so than supporting breast cancer, wouldn’t those donors just donate directly to PP? It makes no sense that there is this huge contingent of SGK supporters out there who stand poised to pull their donations if SGK pursues a strategy that expands their core mission and supports their core beliefs.

For PP’s part, they intentionally publicized what was a private decision between two parties, which amounted to 1% of their breast exam funding and 0.1% of their total budget, probably because they feared others in their supporter base might cave to political pressure too. But is it realistic to think the vast majority of donations to PP don’t know that PP provides abortions? Not at all. It’s common sense to assume PP’s donors know they provide abortions and support them anyway. By self-generating this politicized circus, they may have created $3 mm in donations and more than covered the lost SGK money, but they also announced it’s open season on any benefactor who stops giving for a reason they don’t like, or if they even suspect it’s for a reason they don’t like, which was the case here. Congratulations PP, you added 0.3% to your bottom line while putting word on the street you’ll go head hunting at the drop of a dime. A well-fought battle, but see how nicely that works in the fund-raising war.

The broader theme, and the one really beginning to gain speed in America, is the power of social media to organize instantaneous backlash, and force the hand of decision makers by slapping on a digitized death grip. This torrent of soft power from the citizenry is unprecedented in American life. One interpretation of the trend is very positive. It holds that grass-roots expression is the essence of democracy, and that by allowing citizens to organize and opine with vigor, it will inevitably help craft a society more expressive of the people’s consensus. Maybe, and we should hope as much.

But it also has big downside, as perfectly crystallized this week, where nobody wins. SGK was instantly tarnished. 26 senators demanded that SGK reinstate the donation. There were an average of 400,000 tweets per day as it went viral, most of them anti-SGK. Every newspaper ran a front-page story, and the editorials of the usual suspects attacked the decision. SGK had to deal with all of that. In the end, the decision to reverse themselves was undoubtedly a function of that ever-present cloud: career risk. But what we miss as the bullets fly is that 74 senators did not overstep their bounds, and 95%+ of Americans did not voice outrage and attack a charity. Periodic spikes of social media have the potential to create the illusion of consensus where none exists; it has the potential to strong arm good people into making decisions that are not well considered.

Remember, we’re talking about a foundation, and a founder, who have dedicated thirty years to the cure and treatment of breast cancer. This isn’t greedy charlatans cooking up synthetic default swaps to exploit the spread and cash big rips. The founder ought to be able to donate to whoever she chooses, for any reason she chooses, period. And if it supports one of her core beliefs, all the better. Being pro-life isn’t villainous unless we’re prepared to villainize half the country. And just because abortion and breast cancer are both women’s issues doesn’t mean women’s groups can’t take the other side, any more than a pacifist who sees value in a justified war.

The pro-choicers among us have to admit that 1,200,000 abortions is an insidious number. And the pro-lifers ought to think twice about this continuing rampage against Planned Parenthood, when as the biggest provider of contraception in the country, they’re not only the biggest abortion provider, but probably the biggest preventer as well.

Plan Beats No Plan, and Heat Bends to Light

Time Magazine ran the cover on the right in late Dec, and was then forced to run the left in early Jan. Now they're going to have to run the right again. You know what they say about predicting and the future...might be time we gave it a rest.



Over at Romney HQ, I am confident that the boys sat down this morning, took a deep breath, and decided on a strategy to win Florida. But that's the problem isn't it: a new opponent every week requires a constantly changing strategy, which then smacks of desperation, even though there was nothing you could do to prevent it. It isn't easy finding problems for overachieving, megalomaniacal billionaires with perfect hair, but by golly.

The real problem for Mitt is there is another debate tonight, and another Thursday, and he is getting his lunch eaten by the portly one. This reality-come-election show may be decided in primetime by the most entertaining, pithiest, and confident persona on stage. So I propose tonight our boy Mitt gives the nation a crisp delivery and underlines the reason to pull his lever.



"Right now, Americans despise their own government, which fits the definition of insanity, even if it's well deserved. Nobody believes politicians anymore. We assume they're corrupted by money and power, or blabbing disengenuously out of both sides of their mouth, or both. And as much as he's trying to run away from it, Newt Gingrich is the epitome of a politician. Look at him: he is everything we associate with Washington, and has been for thirty years.



So the question is why would you elect me over him. I'm going to give you three reasons. That was the first one.

The second, and most obvious, is that the country will need a big-time leader who knows exactly what he is doing to navigate the decade that is coming our way. There's a difference between an ideas man and a manager. You may not want to openly admit it, but you want someone who can negotiate compromises with Democrats -- smart, tough, conservative deals.

Newt is not going to bring people to the table. 60% of the country has a negative opinion of him. The last time he was our party's leader, he shut down the government, tried to impeach a president, barely survived one mutiny from his own party, and eventually resigned with the second. Newt is a professional divider, he always has been. Hot rhetoric is fun and it makes for good TV, but it isn't going to work as President when you sit down to negotiate the future of the world with the Chinese. It isn't going to work when global markets force us to cut entitlements for old people. It isn't going to work when we have to figure out how everybody of every color and every background is going to get along in the mixing bowl that is America.

The third reason is that the country wants someone with character. You may not like President Obama, and I disagree with basically everything he says, but he does have character. John Kennedy had character. Dwight Eisenhower had character. I will put my character for 40 years in business, in government, in my church, and as a family man up against anybody's.

It's going to be a hard decade. I will take on big-spending Republicans and big-spending Democrats. I will tell you hard truths. I will negotiate tough as nails. I will give it 100% every day. Right here, right now, I'm the best shot this country has."

Two minutes under the lights, then hammer these themes with a massive warchest, and it's over. Because it makes too much sense not to be, and I have confidence that even Republicans always come to their senses. At some point Romney must force Gingrich to prove he is a good debater, and not just a good showman. This is the wonderful illusion Newt has crafted. But when powerful people convene in small rooms to make big decisions, heat bends to light.

Regardless, it's good to see Gingrich back in the game. He is the more accurate reflection of today's Republican party, and for that reason he ought to win. Organization and money hit him right between the eyes and damn near knocked him out in IA and NH. But Newt's an old-school brawler, and this new brand of conservative populism wears him well. He's sent out the clarion call with his special Newt code to gin up the GOP's animosity towards freeloaders. If they can paint Mitt as a government-loving, tax-dodging, out-of-touch robber baron, an upset is in the cards.

"I like Mitt, but at heart he's basically a polygamous Democrat." It's coming, just give it time. Fortunately, Newt writes his own lines.

A Christmas Miracle: The Arc Bends Towards American Democracy

Suppose there is a woman who pines to get married and settle down. And suppose over the course of a brisk two years she courts many suitors of various ilk. What would we say about this woman's soul if every few months she decided to marry a different person: seven of them in 24 months?


7 Frontrunners: Sifting Mediocrity for a Soulmate

I think surely we would say she is at least confused about what she wants in a life partner, and probably confused about who she wants to be herself. Above all, I think we would say she is desperate to find someone with the personality, fundamentals and vision for the next thirty years to feel content and safe in giving her hand, and having an exceedingly difficult time doing so.

And so it is, at long last, we’ve watched the Republican nomination process tread a wayward path to Iowa, and hence, to get it on. Here I’ve created a compilation of all the major polls since Feb 2010. Like clockwork, every few months there was a new frontrunner.



Being that time of the year for retrospectives, let's take a moment and recount the greatest hits. These are the issues the debates centered upon:

• Whether to lower taxes from historic lows and how much to cut spending from historic highs

• Whether the scientific consensus is correct and global warming is happening and if so whether to do anything about it

• Whether to give illegal immigrants any path to legalization or whether to begin rounding up 12 million of them to expel

• Whether the individual mandate is a targeted conservative proposition to promote individual responsibility or whether it's liberal treason and unconstitutional

• Whether abortion can be re-litigated into effective banishment and whether the government should consider abortion (covered) healthcare at all

• Whether to get out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq and whether to start another war with another Middle Eastern country on the suspicion of having WMD

• Whether to voucherize and privatize Medicare


Beyond the policies, the real highlights were more colorful:

• We saw retail campaigning partially replaced by candidatorial profiteering to raise their profiles, sell books and angle for TV contracts

• We saw the revelation that owning a hunting ranch called "Niggerhead" is not a disqualifier to be President, nor is giving a stump speech high on prescription drugs, but forgetting that you want to kill the department of Energy (and Education, Commerce and the EPA) is

• We saw that wanting the keys to the nuclear arsenal without first knowing China has nukes and has for forty years isn't disqualifying, nor is a professional résumé of running a failed pizza chain and motivational speaking, but two sexual harassment settlements and a 20-year sex affair is

• We saw that being officially and unprecedentedly sanctioned, fined and then thrown out of Congress by your own party the last time you led isn't a good enough indication of leadership potential, but divorcing two women with cancer and accepting $2 million to lobby for Fannie and Freddie may be

• We learned you can name your newsletter after yourself, publish your commentary including racist observations and/or support for universal healthcare via the individual mandate, then years later claim you knew nothing about it and don't agree with any of it


I recount these not to wallow in absurdity, fun as it may be, but rather as the evidence for why the 7 Frontrunners. Just because the Republican nominating process unfolded as a slow-motion disaster doesn’t mean the Republican electorate –- i.e. a third of our population -– somehow transmogrified into an intellectual disaster. More likely it’s the opposite. I think Republicans fervently, and rightly, believe our government has grown to a crushing new size; they suspiciously, and rightly, see Democrats as a party not willing to fix this by transforming entitlements and alienating their base, but rather espousing more of the same and solution-by-redistribution; they unconvincingly, and rightly again, see the Obama policies being passed and implemented as an expansion of the role of government and not fundamental enough to solve the problems.

So when Republicans are presented with this crop of subpar candidates, the logical thing to do is throw yourself at the next pretty thing walking by, at least until you see his true colors and discover that he doesn't have the solutions anymore than the others did.


Rise of Newt: The Reality of Credibility

Which brings us to Newt, the final frontrunner. For all the psycho-analyses of the GOP electorate and this long strange trip, I think Newt is simply the most plausible candidate.

For the home stretch, it looks like Newt and Mitt are the only serious candidates, though I think we could’ve conceded that months ago and saved the heartache. Let's also concede they are both experienced, accomplished businessmen and politicians. I am now convinced that if 1,000 everyday Republicans, from all nooks and crannies, sat down on their couch with Newt then Mitt for an hour, that 75% would conclude Newt is smarter, more intellectual, more knowledgeable, has a broader historical perspective, is more politically savvy, is a bigger thinker, has more ideas, is more conservative, is more Christian, is more strategically capable of striking grand bargains, is more personable, is more likeable, is more charismatic, is a better marketer, and is more capable of taking it to Obama’s chin in the 2012 election and every step along the way. In the end, these are the things that matter.

Is he a better husband, no. Is he more likely to say something foolish or incendiary, yes. But those pale in comparison, as they should. Anyone who did the closest experiment possible and sat on their couch to watch Romney’s hour-long interview with Charlie Rose last week knows this is true. Up until now, I was a Romney fan: inspired by his résumé, impressed by his persona, and willing to forgive his Obama bashing as the necessary political warfare. But by the end of the hour, things had changed. I looked into his eyes, listened to his spiel, and took measure of the man. There is less than meets the eye. He is the very definition of inauthentic.

Fortunately, our culture has undergone a generational shift at just the right moment. The plate that shifted is the most central tectonic of them all: TV. Over the course of a decade, our population became obsessed with reality shows. This was especially true of shows where we watch performances and render judgment. At the same time, social networking became reality's partner in crime, as a bigger and bigger slice spent more and more time propagating opinions for others to agree, disagree and react among.

Thus, ratings for the GOP debates broke records. Last week’s finale ranked right behind Monday Night Football for the top-rated cable show of the week, along with two hours of analysis:



Once you’re sharing the rarified air with the NFL in America's attention span, you’ve arrived. To wit, the number was unprecedented: 16 primetime debates. I must confess to having watched every single one.

Why this is important is that while I’ve all but given up hope on our electorate’s interest in understanding the big issues, I have the utmost respect in our Blink-like abilities to assess credibility. To be fair, the issues are now so complex, with such long time horizons and interconnected webs, it’s now approaching unreasonable to ask people to invest the time and mindspace necessary to fathom a trillion dollars, to understand the federal budget, to see the risks in a trade war with China, to suppose the outcomes of global warming, to forecast the tradeoffs to renewable energy, and all the rest.

What we can do is spend the time on our couch watching the debates and decide who is most credible, and we have. Thus, the rise of Newt.


Clash of the Titans: Organization and Money vs. Religion and Conservatism

Aside from a well-justified fear that Newt will say or do something to destroy himself, what primarily stands in his way from here on out is organization and money. Just yesterday we learned that Virginia has somehow found a way to exclude the candidate who the plurality of its electorate wants to vote for. The absurdity of that aside (the guy lives in Virginia and he can’t get on the ballot?), we should assume it’s a microcosm of similar organizational mishaps that will recur. This is the result of getting a late start and now lacking a fully-developed campaign infrastructure. It just happens to be magnified when your archrival is a managerial wizard and has been organizing his ground game for six years.

On the money front, through October, in total Romney has raised $33 million to Newt’s $3 million. From this week’s ad blitz in Iowa, we can assume his camp decided enough with the dry powder. Remember that 95% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money over the past two cycles, and 90% of the money goes to TV ads. The initial onslaught is already closing the Gingrich lead.

Romney is executing his strategy to perfection, the question is whether it's enough. The real question is whether it can ever be enough when people just viscerally do not like you.

In addition to being the better candidate, Newt’s advantages will be momentum and math. It always helps to peak late, and by doing so Newt had plenty of time to trade out the “Newt Gingrich for president you’ve got to be joking me” for “He’s a good debater and I think he might even be leading now” plausibility. In order of the primaries, Newt is: tied for 1st with Ron Paul in Iowa, running 2nd behind Romney in New Hampshire, and blowing Romney out two-to-one in South Carolina and Florida. If these hold and Newt gets out front early, the dominos begin to fall. Expect everyone’s support but Hunstman’s to mostly fall Newt’s way:



Another candidate not listed here whose votes Gingrich could swipe are Sarah Palin's. With some well-placed VP alluding to, Newt could get her allegiance and that of her faithful, sizeable following.

Romney’s Mormonism and perceived faux-conservatism will likely lead those meandering sheep right to Newt. Combined with his jumpy manner, all these factors cultivate what has become this underlying sense of fakeness that beget the Romney authenticity gap.

The data squarely backs this up: a quarter of Republicans freely admit they are less likely to support a candidate who is Mormon; a full third of evangelical whites:



Not much is a certainty in the Republican primary, but we know this: if you don’t have the evangelical white vote, you’re in trouble. And you’re really in trouble if you expect to pick up the supporters of Paul, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum as they gradually-then-quickly migrate.

Regardless of how plugged into the candidates the Republican electorate is, if you ask them for the one word they use to describe their politics, they say “Conservative.” It’s almost cult-like this fetish with the idea of being conservative, and I have to admit I’ve never understood it in a society that values forward-thinking progressivity in most every aspect of life other than politics. Nevertheless, it is the way it is, and here’s the judgment on Gingrich and Romney:



All the key demos for the Republican base are 10-30% more likely to see Gingrich as a true conservative. This has the added benefit of being true. The last time Newt was in government he led the Conservative Revolution and took back the House for the first time in 40 years. The last time Mitt was in government he was the governor of Massachusetts. No need to overthink it.


Newt Wins, Democracy Wins

As a Democrat, it’s too easy to have watched this race unfold and cry joy. Perhaps it’s the charitable season, but I see the big patterns being revealed as very positive. A party in disarray, both philosophically from the Bush years and electorally with the rise of the Tea Party, was always going to have a messy selection process. But the fact that they landed on the two superior candidates says the process did its job. Continuing this evolution is potentially a generational upshot for democracy, and would ideally drag the Republican Party back to legitimacy along the way.

I believe if Gingrich wins it will be a win for democracy. He is a closer match to the Republican electorate’s ideals, and he has the stronger political mind. His political philosophy is more important than his personal tribulations, and let's be honest, it’s hard for us avid Clinton supporters to feign indignity at Gingrich’s infidelities. On the other hand, if Romney is able to outmaneuver him in this last leg with organization and negative ads, I think it will be a loss for democracy. It will say that money is still the root of power, and regardless of these broad cultural shifts that our votes are still malleable to a superior ad buy and 30-second psychology.

In the end, the debate between the GOP candidate and Obama will be epic and is likely to set our course for a generation. The pragmatists and realists among us cannot wait to see whether there will be a real clash of ideas with the soul of our country as the prize. For it’s not that Democrats or Obama have shown their blueprint to be superior any more than they’ve shown themselves to be more courageous. It’s that compared to the alternative, they have consistently shown their character, politics and philosophy to be more intelligent, more dignified and more selfless.

But these are not the end all be all. I make room that shrinking government to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub and unleashing the free market may be the only path to salvation from the hole we’ve dug. As painful as it is to say, and as much suffering as it would be to get there, I am at least open to someone making the case. But they’d better make it persuasively, because if not, I’ll buy my first bumper sticker, it will be a big blue O, and we’ll call it a day.

Next up, why we've decided to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to have such a predominant influence on our national elections. Really, why would you do that.

Merry Christmas from my family to yours,
FDMR

OWS: The Four Megathemes in Forty Charts

“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

Occupy Wall Street is in its second month and appears to be maintaining momentum, if not gathering. It's been said about protests, “First, they ignore you. Second, they ridicule you. Third, they attack you. Then, you win.” We appear to be in the attack phase, yet I don’t think anyone sees victory around the corner, especially considering the stakes of this particular game: money.

Still, the establishment seems to me particularly obtuse about this "99%" movement. They say OWS doesn’t have a clearly defined platform, no goals, and that it’s an "angry mob” as described by Majority Leader Cantor. Herman Cain, leading Republican presidential nominee, said on Meet the Press he doesn’t understand what OWS wants; then reiterated his notorious judgment that “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” Mitt Romney has been heard saying similar things (for now).

Whether you agree with OWS or not, it really takes a special kind of obliviousness to declare they have no point considering how far the country's central pillar -- the middle class -- has been shifted. Nearly 20% of the country is either unemployed, part-time in lieu of full-time, or has given up looking. Yes, unemployment is the symptom, but it's the virus that OWS is protesting. One would also hope these pols might appreciate the upside of harnessing these underlying megathemes, considering how handy 99% would be on election day. Let’s see if we can help clarify it for them.


~~~


Annoying as it may be, our electorate must form its opinions, and our leaders make their decisions, based upon a common set of facts. But, more and more, we’re ignoring facts in lieu of emotion; or the two parties and their followings are operating on two different sets of facts; or we the people are simply not taking the time to understand the facts; or the facts are being intentionally obscured by those with special interests.

Finding the data is not easy, but it is doable. Looking at charts is not fun, but it is necessary. If you are brave and curious, these are forty trends driving our society. Or if you are just curious why the 99'ers hair is on fire, or whether the American tradition of civil disobedience will prompt change this generation, read on.


1. The money is being hoarded

As a starting point, it's good perspective to remember how successful America is: 4% of the world's population has somehow acquired a quarter of its wealth in just over 200 years.



These are the household incomes we currently define as the poverty line:



The 2010 Census shows that 15% of Americans are now in poverty:

• The rate has risen from 12% in 2007 to 14% in 2009 to 15% in 2010.
• 15% are now receiving food stamps.
• 16% have no health insurance.

If you add together the populations of the 25 states with the least population, you get 50 million people. This is the same number of people living in poverty.

Meanwhile, the top 1% of earners receive 19% of the income after taxes (24% pre-tax).



The top 1% has 35% of all the wealth. The top 5% have more than the bottom 95%.



The top 1% has received nearly all of our economy's gains for the last 30 years.



Chief executives' incomes have quadrupled, company profits doubled, but workers' wages remained flat.



This is a US-centric problem, and it has gotten out of control.



The financial sector has gone from 10% of the economy to 40%.




2. Our economic policy is self-defeating

Manufacturing has gone from 30% of all jobs to 7%.



(Note that Reagan began the deregulatory movement in 1980, and China was admitted into the World Trade Organization in 2000.)

We've gone from no trade deficit with China to $300 billion (2% of our GDP).



Clinton created 22 million jobs, Bush created 5 million.



We give other countries $300 billion each year for oil (another 2% of GDP).



The Bush administration, the Fed and Wall Street watched the housing bubble form.



When it burst, home prices fell 37% from peak and household wealth fell 23%.



The government is spending 25% of GDP while only taking in 15% in revenue.



The government has run up a $14 trillion debt ($2 trillion to China).



We have the world's highest corporate tax rate at 35%.



Yet, the average rate paid among Fortune 500's is only 18%; a quarter average 0%.



This makes our effective rate the world's lowest. In 2008, it was 1.8% of GDP. In 2011, it's 1.2%.



Households' federal income taxes are lower than they have ever been.



Total taxation (federal + state + local) is as low as it's ever been.



We tax ourselves far less than than any major competitor.



Yet, half of us think our federal income taxes are too high.



Even though half of us don't actually pay any.




3. Our priorities have gotten out of whack

Only 4% of us are homosexual, yet gay marriage is a perennial wedge issue.



Gun ownership and gun deaths are a US phenomenon, yet the 2nd Amendment is a sacred cow of the right, and a scaredy cat issue for the left.



Smoking kills 430,000 Americans each year, more than the entirety of World War II. Yet, is legal and subsidized by the government $1 billion each year.



There is a clear correlation between population, GDP, CO2 and temperature. Yet, one party refuses to acknowledge it is happening, and public acceptance is in freefall.



The levels are accelerating, yet we're doing nothing about it.



While China is surging ahead in solar (and wind, hydro, and nuclear).



34% of the country is now obese. (2% in China)



We watch twice as much TV as the rest of the world. (5.25 hrs daily)



We've fallen way behind in educational attainment.



Video game sales have tripled in a decade.



Time spent gaming also tripled in a decade, while reading declined.



The cost of college tuition is out of control relative to incomes.



The divorce rate is 33% after 10 years post-marriage, 50% after 20 years.



The number of children born out of wedlock rises unabated.



While our defense spending equals the rest of the world combined.



And we maintain ~10,000 nuclear weapons.




4. Health, government and profiteering do not mix

Private healthcare profits are exploding our overall healthcare costs.



Instead of focusing on why we need so much healthcare, we attack insurance companies -- whose revenue is 2% / profit is 0.2% of all healthcare spending.



Privatizing profits + Unhealthy citizens = 2x healthcare costs versus other countries



In two generations, healthcare will have gone from 5% of GDP to 22%.



Spending twice as much on healthcare means having half as much to invest elsewhere, putting us at a competitive disadvantage.



The amount spent lobbying in DC has doubled in one decade.



The amount to elect a president doubled in one cycle, and is up 7x since Clinton.



Outside money is now pouring into elections following the Citizens United ruling.



While gerrymandering solidifies incumbency and polarizes politicians.




~~~


If you've made it this far, well done. The people who want Occupy Wall Street to have solved these problems with specific demands are asking a lot. And those who say they don't understand why all the fuss are being insincere or unmindful of the changes afoot. What has happened, and what is new, is a widespread recognition of the totality of the problems relative to the smallness of its perpetrators. The days of deindustrialization of society and narrowly-shared prosperity in exchange for financialization and a debt-ridden, growth-obsessed oligarchical stratification are numbered. This happens from time to time in American life, and will be remedied one way or the other.


"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." -- Abraham Lincoln