Ran across this article today:

http://news.yahoo.com/stick-poor-congressional-strategy-080500785.html

While I'm not going to question the veracity of this author's numbers, I would like to point out a few things–as a Devil's Advocate–about some of her statements.

The idea is, if you can't pay for your home without government assistance, you don't deserve to live in one. In this spirit, budget cuts due to sequestration will take rental assistance vouchers away from 140,000 low-income families by the beginning of next year, making housing more expensive as agencies raise costs to offset the budget cuts.

This is a reference (through the in-line linked source in her article) to Housing Choice Vouchers which is undergoing sequestration cuts.  The more authoritative article the click-through story is probably talking about is here at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Basically, it's a budget reality issue.  Across the board cuts under sequestration to try and meet the budget limits are provoking agencies to try and make due with lower budgets.  One way is to reduce the number of vouchers and a second is the amount paid out per voucher.  While I'm not going to argue putting people on the street is a good thing, you do have to ask what the alternatives are and what are the likely results if no change is made.

In this case, pulling money into this program necessitates either pulling more money out of other programs (like she laments more on throughout the article) or trying to raise taxes. The irony in this second course is the people most likely to be hit by raised taxes—commercial property owners and businesses—are the same people establishing the rent amounts in the first place.  In other words, one major alternative would probably create a similar problem anyway.

If you're lucky enough to keep your home, don't expect to heat it. Sequester cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) meant that 300,000 low-income families in 2013 were denied government support for energy costs.

The in-line link (included) links through to this article from the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA).  The LIHEAP is a major source of "big oil tax subsidies"  which has been a presidential and congressional target since the election of Barack Obama.  Although the story currently is driven by the effects of sequestration, the irony is this program has been in the political gun sights of many liberals for a long time and their success is also their failure in this case.

The recent reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has affected more than 47 million Americans and is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964.

Two parts to this story.  First is the expiration of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on 1 November 2013 which was envisioned as a temporary increase during the recession.  That—by itself—is an illustration of a faulty mindset attributing temporary, exceptional measures with a status quo going forward.  The second is the basic food costs covered by SNAP are tied to agriculture subsidies—also under attack—to keep food costs low by helping to offset production and some transportation costs.  Without one (subsidies), the other costs more.

Again, a victim of potential successes.

Generally, the impression I get is one who doesn't understand the money funding these programs is somewhat finite and comes from the people of the United States (and elsewhere, in some cases) directly or indirectly.  Additionally, while it would be nice to be able to provide everything for everyone from a certain perspective, the reality is—sometimes—the best thing you can do for someone is back off and let them solve their problems themselves.

In this case, expecting the Federal government to do it for you is like betting on a racehorse to pull your kid's wagon.  The wagon might get there, but it's highly doubtful it (or your kid) will be in the condition you'd like it to be.

A War on Ergonomics and Manufacturing Standards

What amuses me about the whole Assault Weapon Ban idea is that it is simply an exercise against ergonomics and manufacturing standards.

I mean, look at it this way:

http://www.logarchism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/0815d2ed-66d9-4159-8691-0c61dce8d026-new-guns-slide-1.jpg

Collapsing stock: Primary use of a collapsing stock is to adjust the length of the stock to fit a shooter better. The basic idea is to make it easier for a person using it to accurately fire and adjust to recoil without requiring a customized stock or dealing with a one-size-fits-all stock. Main people it generally helps would be women and shooters who aren't of average (male) size and build.

Folding stock: Primary use is to reduce the overall size of the weapon for storage or carry when not in use. The basic idea is simply to allow the weapon to be where the person using it is more comfortably when the weapon isn't actually being used. If anything, folding stocks increase inaccuracy in some designs and/or increase felt recoil in designs where the conventional stock it replaces contains a recoil reducing mechanism.

Pistol grip: Primary use is to change the angle of the hand to the wrist, usually to allow a more comfortable position and reduce strain on the wrist. It also tends to increase the ability to control a weapon for people--like women--who do not have a wide grip span or a high grip strength. While some people say it's to allow "spray-and-pray" hip shooting, one of the first weapons designed to allow for "hip firing" was the Browning Automatic Rifle and (early versions) used a conventional stock. Later adaptations and many of its peers used pistol grips, but were primarily intended for use from and initially were equipped with bipods as walking fire is generally less accurate than fire from a stable position farther away.

"Barrel shroud": In the "basic" form, simply a ventilated barrier between a chunk of metal that gets hot (because you have put burning gases through it) and the rest of your body/hands/etc. Sort of like the grill on a space heater to keep you from touching things that will burn you. Other "more advanced versions" may allow the attachment of things like lights (so you know what you're aiming at) and sights (so you don't hit what you aren't aiming at).

Flash suppressor: Primary use is to turn a large fireball at the muzzle (depending on the barrel length/ammunition combo) into one where you aren't trying to shoot blind after each shot. Simply, it allows a shooter to continue to identify targets/non-targets as well as not disrupt other shooters' vision. You don't typically see these on pistols because the type of powder used is usually consumed quicker reducing blast. You often don't find these on shotguns for the same reason and on long-range hunting rifles because the barrel is longer to allow greater power and accuracy.

Bayonet lug: Original use was to attach a bladed, melee weapon to your rifle in case you ran out of ammunition. Currently, most of these are more collector items than the weapons that can fit them as well as the US barrel length requirements often making bayonets no longer able to securely attach to a weapon. This currently exists--primarily--due to manufacturing standards for the various parts (front sight assembly, gas block, muzzle device, etc.). For manufacturing, the availability of standard parts shared with military models--but not parts of the fire control mechanism--often drives the presence of these.

Although not explicitly listed in most lists, the general appearance or "black rifle" look is generally based on manufacturing standards. In most cases, "assault weapons" are black due to the finishes applied and the lack of concealment of various parts by wood. Generally, this is to allow these firearms to meet requirements regarding rust-resistance, resistance to various oils or acids, as well as to decrease shine on the weapon. 

The use of wood--historically--was dropped for most military weapons because of susceptibility to humid climates, reduction of weapon weight, and simply the added cost and time to produce while being difficult to reliably meet production standards. The resulting designs--primarily of metal and plastics--also allows more modular, reliably interchanging parts between those weapons produced to the same specifications. Sort of like the parts of a modern car. 

The problem with the specifications banned is not address the lethality of the weapons or their actual use. In order to protect hunting, lethality can only indirectly be addressed through ammunition capacity because most traditional hunting rifles (and shotguns) are more powerful than most "assault weapons" because the focus for these weapons is usually on ergonomics and manufacturing standards more than lethality. Even addressing the magazine capacity--itself an ergonomic compromise between weapon weight (loaded) and how frequently magazine changes are required for the same number of rounds fired--is only applicable in theory to the first magazine fired's total capacity and should actually not matter if any time at all is required during a fight to do something like move or locate a target. 

In these cases, the ease of reloading--another ergonomic measure--reduces the limits on lethality based on magazine capacity.

Overall, however, I think the actual result of passing such a war on ergonomics and manufacturing standards without directly addressing the behavior of criminals is more likely to simply push development of decentralized manufacturing of weapons as well as "parallel" lethal technologies like pneumatic weapons to which many of these rules might not apply. Additionally, with the protection of older, more lethal weapons, the ongoing design and production of more ergonomic "chassis" to install older weapons in--like those for older M14/M1A rifles and even M1 Garands--will likely continue and exploit the lack of focus of this sort of legislation to create weapons just as lethal and nearly as ergonomic while missing the opportunity to address the criminal behavior behind these mass shootings.

It doesn't take a gun to kill a lot of people. It doesn't even take a well-designed one either.

Gun Control: The Low-Hanging Fruit

With the recent high-profile spree killings in the news, more and more talk of gun control and another attempt to ban assault weapons is being thrown around.  The reason why it's almost useless is the fact—like people looking for a solution to this problem—guns are also the low-hanging fruit for most of these killers. 

Let's talk about killing…

Soldiers and police also deal with the possibility of having to kill as part of their profession.  However, like most people with a normal degree of empathy, they are inherently reluctant to do so.  The way they are trained to "overcome" this reluctance in the performance of duty illustrates the major difference between the spree killers and these professionals.

For soldiers, life as a soldier starts early through the creation of the idea of a shared cultural or social identity.  This lays the basis—psychologically—for the motivations to volunteer (in non-conscripts) and cooperation with conscription in other cultures.  During training, soldiers are typically exposed to a high degree of forced cooperation with other soldiers which usually results in a high degree of emotional bonding between both the soldier and other soldiers and the soldier and their organization.  This is long before any exposure to actual combat in most military institutions.

When faced by combat, most soldiers are then presented with an emotionally relevant situation where they can choose not to kill an enemy but the risk of not killing them is in terms of the lives and well-being of the soldiers around them.  In these situations, the enemy is often from a distinct "other" group and/or is presented as such by military and usually civilian authorities as well as—often—the enemy themselves.  This means the decision to kill is one of empathy for a stranger versus empathy for your comrades and—depending on the country—your people, country, etc.

This dilemma—although enabling most soldiers to kill—is also a likely root cause for some post traumatic stress disorders.

Police—while using similar methods of group-creation training initially—are presented with a different problem because the social group they are nominally protecting ("the Public") is also from where the potential "target" they may have to kill comes from.  In some cases, they will use the same sort of psychological distancing as soldiers when the enemy presents itself as a distinct social entity like a gang, but the primary decision maker for police use of lethal force is the concept of immediate threat.

For police, the dilemma they have to resolve is one of immediate threat to themselves and to bystanders from a particular person in a particular situation.  The "releaser" for the ability to kill is their emotional attachment to themselves and others in the somewhat nebulous concept of "the Public" and their natural reluctance to kill other people.  This dilemma may also result in post traumatic stress disorder when the officer is unsure of his or her actual assessment of the threat presented or has an unwillingness to accept it after the fact.

In both of these paradigms, the only legitimate targets for lethal force are directly or indirectly threats toward someone who they also have an emotional attachment to.  This is one reason why the crimes of spree killers seem so outrageous and horrible to us. 

Let me explain…

The commonality between all of the recent—and not so recent—spree killers is not necessarily the use of guns, it's the history of untreated or undertreated mental illness combined with an average or above average degree of intelligence and enough planning and preparation to make for a large body count.

The body counts in these incidents are because these men have by design selected target locations and times to maximize the number of non-threatening targets given the weapons they had at their disposal at the time.  All of these crimes had some degree of pre-planning involved.  In some cases—like the Aurora shooter and the shooter in Norway—there were months of preparation and the creation of complex plans.  All of these crimes had locations selected that took into account the availability of defensive measures for their victims. 

Again, for the Aurora and Norway killers, the secondary explosive devices made were intended to distract local law enforcement.  For the Columbine event, the explosive devices were intended to create a distraction and probably allow a greater concentration of targets for the shooters, but this didn't materialize.  The Virginia Tech shooter did not use explosive devices; however, he did prepare and bring chains and locks to manipulate his targets response by restricting their ability to escape.

In these cases, the spree killers show a high degree of analytical problem solving and understanding of both their victims' and law enforcements' responses.  This also reveals that these men intentionally selected targets for their inability to defend themselves and probably used laws regarding firearm restrictions to their advantage.

None of which is why I think gun control is a waste of time to stop these sorts of killers.

Why is gun control probably a waste of time against these killers?

Gun control is a waste of time against these killers because they are not stupid and are usually very aware of these restrictions.  The selection of firearms—even in the cases where bombs were also used—is more likely a compromise between ease of use and the degree of personal involvement in the actual killing.  Similar spree killings in places like Japan and China have so far relied on melee weapons including kitchen knives and cleavers with similar targets—school children—possibly as a response to increased difficulty acquiring guns. 

For the Norway killings, the killer maneuvered through the firearm laws of several European countries in order to acquire the weapons and explosives he used.  The Aurora shooter—likewise—maneuvered through the legal requirements of several jurisdictions to assemble his "arsenal" and explosive materials.  Others simply didn't have to go as far.

For the Sandy Hook shooter, he used weapons available at home and Columbine shooters used a combination of available weapons and weapons purchased for them by another person.  In all of these instances, cars or vans were also used to transport weapons to their targets of choice as well both in vehicles provided to them or acquired by other means.

While restricting access to firearms might on the surface seem to be a means to reduce the number of casualties, my issue is with the possibility it might work.  For all of the shooters mentioned so far, the firearms used appear to be the weapon with the lowest opportunity cost to use but with the highest degree of personal involvement in the actual killing.  Assuming we could somehow get an effective weapons ban—for these type of killers—you're simply increasing the opportunity cost for one type of tool.

This doesn't stop this sort of non-empathetic, intentioned killer.  It merely makes them find another tool for their tool box.  If—like in the Chinese and Japanese school massacres—it forces them into a less lethal but more personal weapon like a knife or cleaver, it might reduce the number of families dealing with dead children.  If—like in the Aurora , Norway, and Columbine incidents—explosive devices are already on the menu, it might simply make the killers forego the killing of many people one-at-a-time and go for a larger, single or multiple killing with more casualties.

My point is these men (and all have been men so far) have yet to allow a law to stop them from killing.  The only thing that appears to change is the amount of planning time and the higher number of casualties.  The focus on trying to "limit" the number of dead by banning weapons when you have already seen multiple killers using a potentially more lethal set of weapons is ludicrous and is a recipe toward creating even larger number of casualties as these men adapt to using different weapons to kill with.

The solution—the only solution, in my opinion—is to focus on making these situations result in only one—the perpetrator—or ideally zero casualties. 

"He was a quiet boy…"

Almost all of these spree killers operate in a social vacuum.  While they have acquaintances, most of them lack close, emotional attachments.  This may be both a symptom and a cause of this violence.  This is a symptom because it enables the degree of planning involved with a lack of outside interference.  For many of these killers, the first kill is usually their parents, whom they live with.  Outside of their family—and with their family out of the picture—most of the restrictions on these men's behavior vanish and it enables them to go out and kill.

The first step to preventing these killings is simply social involvement and mutual investment with the people around you.  If someone can't or won't emotionally engage, those people need to be identified and professionally assessed.  

If they lack the ability to demonstrate empathy toward other human beings, they need to be positively controlled, monitored, and kept out of situations where that lack of empathy can present itself in a violent manner.  This may mean medication, secure facilities, or something similar to prevent them access to the means of doing harm to others.  That's knives, guns, cars, bombs, information, etc..

If they have a history of violence as well, there should be an obligation to restrict them from interaction with the rest of society.  These are demonstrations—for those who look—of the lack of empathy that restrains everyone else in society from doing overt harm outside of extreme circumstances.  These actions should be documented and remain searchable in order to prevent access to locations, situations, and the means to allow large scale killing.

Most mentally ill people aren't this way, but most of the spree killers are mentally ill—in other words, someone noticed there was something wrong—and no one took definitive action to stop them.

Why?

Because it's not comfortable to make decisions about someone else when you're worried about people making decisions for you.  The problem is, until we are willing and able to, the killings will go on and—as the low-hanging fruit is disposed of—probably get worse as they adapt to the rules we set for ourselves.

Relationship Advice I Wish Everyone Understood: Sexual Compatibility

I’ve spent a little time sitting on the sidelines occupationally and some of that time has found me on various websites where people seek advice.  One of the more common families of issues seems to be:

I’m in a relationship/marriage and my partner doesn’t satisfy me.  I really love him/her and I want things to be better…

Which is typically followed by a long list of reasons they want to stay together—children, religious ideals, economic situation—which are usually very rational reasons to want to stay together.  This is usually not followed by a description of the partner’s qualities.  Generally, it’s the female partner who is actually seeking help.

The issue is—like my title suggests—sexual compatibility, but the problem is many people only consider it after the fact and a very long time after the social and economic commitments have been made.  In many cases, the person seeking advice admits up front their sex life with this partner was never particularly satisfying in the first place.

To be honest, because I’m a nice guy, my suggestions to them in the fora they ask usually are a combination of a medical work up (to catch any underlying health issues), mutual counseling with a professional counselor (ideally, to resolve communication issues), and to try something different sexually with their partners (to identify potential common sexual interests they haven't explored yet).

What I really want to do is ask them “What were you thinking when you committed to someone in a sexual relationship who can’t even provide you basic sexual satisfaction?”  Don’t get me wrong, I’m a realist and I know sexual satisfaction for both parties isn’t going to happen all the time, every time either party has an interest.  But regularly satisfying sex in a sexual relationship has got to be a requirement.

Why?

Oxytocin

Oxytocin is a neurohormone  which means it’s a chemical signal (hormone) released by nerve cells (neuro-), primarily in the part of the brain—the hypothalamus—that’s key to our sexual responses, many of our stress responses, and integral to the system in our brain that drives how we respond to friends, lovers, enemies, our children, and basically every other being in existence.  Oxytocin is released during sexual arousal and in higher doses (with another hormone called prolactin) with orgasm. 

What does this have to do with sexual compatibility? 

Simple, one of the effects of oxytocin is increased cooperation.

In the last few years, oxytocin has been available to researchers in a form allowing them to administer it nasally.  This has resulted in a lot of less-than-sexual research in the field of experimental economics.  To make a long story short, in controlled studies, people administered oxytocin make more cooperative economic decisions, are more likely to share, and increases empathy in males.  Also, it makes it harder for people to “remember the bad times”.

This means, if you are sexually compatible, you regularly dose each other with a chemical signal promoting sharing, forgiveness, and cooperation in a way most people will proactively seek out.  Add into it the fact prolactin—also released in high doses with partnered orgasm—produces sexual satiety so both partners tend to forgo looking for sex elsewhere, you have a reasonable starting place for a committed sexual relationship with added economic, social, and familial commitments.

However, as some people point out in advice forums:

I’ve been married (a large number of) years to my partner.  He/She was my first and we’re still going strong.  We just took the commitment seriously…

Desperation and the Learning Curve

As kids, we learn rules reasonably quickly so, by age five, we often end up arguing with little kids about rules they know well—like grammar and spelling rules—as we try to teach them the exceptions to these rules.  For example, the plurals of mouse/house and why “its” is a possessive and doesn’t have an apostrophe seem to confound many kindergartners and first graders.  After a while, we learn that most rules have exceptions and start picking up on how to make decisions including cost, benefits, and risks based less on rules and more on the underlying expectations.

Once we grasp the concept there are alternatives, but they might differ in these three qualities—cost, benefit, and risk—we often start making more responsible decisions when we have experience with each alternative.  Or, we simply emulate the people we know who’ve already made those decisions.  The reason this is important is the fact emulation is often of a lower cost and risk than gaining experience with an alternative in order to make an informed choice.  As far as a learning curve goes, it’s a strategy to “leap ahead” to a hopefully better choice. 

As a society, because many of these choices have consequences for all of us—consider the choice to follow traffic laws vs. driving 90mph through school zones—we often find ways to “incentivize” particular choices by either lowering the benefits—speed bumps—or increasing the costs—speeding tickets—in order to drive individual decision makers toward a socially beneficial ideal.

Sexual relationships are prime real estate for this.  The institution of marriage, for example, is a public announcement of an (assumed) sexually exclusive relationship that’s incentivized with social benefits in most cultures as well as increased costs for violating marriage vows and expectations.  The ideal result is a decrease of social and family disruption and the hope for a stable upbringing of socially compliant children.

Where does sexual compatibility apply to this?

Simple, when the perceived consequences (cost x risk) of a failed, socially accepted relationship is more than the level of perceived sexual frustration in the relationship, many people will take the easy way (change their perceptions) or find enough social pressure to apply to their partner to change.  

Even if this fails, the amount of emotional and social investment in their relationships creates an effect called cognitive dissonance.  With cognitive dissonance, the individual changes their own perception of their situation and often tries to “recruit” others into similar situations to validate their investment.

However, another factor may also be at work and that is developmental age. 

Humans have a very long development.  We have a delayed childhood compared to even our closest primate relatives including a long infancy providing more time for brain development and language-related ability acquisition.  We have a very long juvenile period before puberty.  We have an additional growth spurt of neurons in the part of the brain we use to learn how to (socially) solve problems and interact with others as an adult during puberty.  We have provided a long socially-mandated developmental period between biological adulthood and when they are considered—legally and socially—an adult (i.e. the “teenage years”).  We—at least the female half of the species—have a reproductive phase (pregnancy/motherhood) and post-reproductive phase (post-menopause) with the potential for yet more social roles.

In each of these stages, our “place” in society and even the same relationships changes because we change neurologically (the way we think), physiologically (the way our body functions), socially (the way we interact with each other).  In some stages—like early childhood and the period right after puberty—our behavior is much more plastic or changeable and we respond differently to our environments and partners.  During these stages, we can develop sexual traits that are much less flexible later on. 

Victims of child sexual abuse demonstrate this to an extreme in a negative manner.  Learning that sex is something done to you, against your will, and that you have to put up with it tends to change the way you deal with partners later on.  Sexually active teenagers kept blind about consequences of their sexual behaviors often become more irresponsible adults.  Sexual isolationism is probably a source for much fetishism as well when sexual learning becomes focused on what is available during this plastic period.

At the same time, if two people enter into an accepted, supportive relationship while still “pliable” and learn together, their sexual compatibility may develop as a consequence of their sexual plasticity.  With positive reinforcement and attention to their health, that can result in long term, successful, sexual relationships as well.  Probably the only way to tell the difference between the “desperation” and the “shared learning” crowds would be some measure of general health as desperation and frustration often results in health consequences related to stress.

So, what’s a guy or girl to do to avoid the problem completely?

Communication, Experience, and Honesty

Because sexual compatibility is important, sexual experience with a partner before becoming seriously committed—or a willingness to break a committed relationship after the sexual experience starts—is very important.  Obviously, reducing risk to both partners up front and avoiding situations that force some level of commitment—like pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections—are one key to this solution.

A second key aspect is avoiding “desperation decisions” based on economics or living situations.  Helping someone out of a bad situation is good.  Helping them by having them become your boyfriend/girlfriend and having them become financially dependent on you isn’t good.

Communication is also very important.  While learning isn’t as quick depending on age, communicating your desires, satisfaction, lack of satisfaction, and listening to their issues up front helps you both assess whether the relationship is working and helps you and a partner establish what works for each other.  Without direct communication, a partner is left open to assume, try to interpolate what you want, think, and feel off of less informative non-verbal cues.

Communicating clearly also keys into honesty, both with a partner and with yourself.  If you aren’t happy, you need to be honest.  If sexual satisfaction isn’t happening—and with some partners, it simply won’t—you have to be honest with yourself and not commit. 

Unless the partner is between 13 and 17 years old, don’t expect to be able to change them.  The odds are, it’s not going to happen in a way you want them to change.  This means—if you are an adult and you aren’t a criminal—don’t marry someone expecting to “fix them”.  Their flexible learning years are mostly over by the time you can legally date them.  They will change, but the trajectory is set by about 18.  If they aren’t “good enough” for you now, you need another partner.

(Note: I am not advocating sex with legally underage people.  Though a biological reality and a cultural reality in many cultures, exploiting this is illegal and considered immoral in the culture we live in and I accept that.)

Likewise, on the prospects of change, some physiological events are going to change people, but usually in ways beyond your ability to change them.  Pregnancy and menopause for women are key events.  Both of these will change how a woman sees herself, feels about herself, and what she needs emotionally.  This will change sexual compatibility.  Sometimes, in a good way, but usually just in a  different way. 

Also, trauma, illness, and even social changes can affect sexual compatibility by changing how a person—especially men in this case—see and feel about themselves.  If they are on medication or start taking medication—whether hormonal birth control, psychoactive drugs, or illegal drugs—sexual changes often follow.   Expect change, and try to adapt with a partner by focusing first on how they feel about themselves emotionally.  Don’t expect everything to always be the same.

At the end of the day, sexual compatibility can make or break relationships.  If it’s there, it’s a mutually desired activity replacing “you and me” with “we”.  If it’s not, it’s one more problem for “you and me”.  And that’s what I really wish people knew up front.

The Mobility of Wealth: An Opinion

With the freak show that is the political side of the debt ceiling debate and the desire on one side to raise taxes, I've been thinking about wealth...


Wealth is more than resources because--at a certain point--the resources you get from wealth far exceed those you can actually use. I mean, you can eat $10 in donuts if you really, really want to, but there's no way you can physically consume $100,000 in donuts before they all go bad.

And--if you did--it would probably kill you.

So, there's a point in the scale of wealthiness where wealth becomes wealth for wealth's sake or a means of competition with similarly wealthy people...

The other thing that tends to happen above a certain point, is a huge increase in mobility.

So, a "rich" person who makes $150,000 a year is probably tied to a particular address because that home and/or the workplace is the source of their wealth. Someone who's got $1.5 million a year probably has multiple addresses and--if they have the liquid funds--can literally move almost anywhere in the world.

Which is why--at the wealth-for-wealth's sake level--many taxes and legal liabilities become a matter of emotional connection with some group and not something practically enforceable. Simply having the means to pick up and leave makes it so they can change the rules for themselves by simply changing their location.

That's why places like Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and other tax-havens exist. People there get phenomenally wealthy because of the portability of wealth and the mobility of the rich.


So, taxing the hell out of people that are "rich" (i.e. non-mobile rich) can get a lot of money until such point their means of getting money goes away. For example, you tax the hell out of a Doctor, their costs go up--or try to until they hit the limits on insurance--and then they either become specialists of some sort so they can charge more or they just get out of the practice and work in some other capacity to pay off their loans.

(Yeah, MD's aren't really rich, for the most part, because of the cost of their education.)

If you try that with the mobile rich, they leave the country, hire tax lawyers, and use their money to protect their money.

Works the same way with corporations. Unless they are tied to a particular, physical location--like a mine--you're ability to tax them is solely based on their skill with the tax law and their attachment to a particular place/government/people. And the more you make that attachment painful, the more you end up with a company that--legally--exists only in a PO Box in a tax-friendly tax-haven somewhere.

All the while, leaving people screaming about the "tax loopholes" and trying to carry water with a spaghetti strainer.

If you wanted an honest fix, you have to give these people a reason--an advantage--to "be attached" to one group or one location, get them integrated and then manage the taxes so both they and the people around them profit.

But, that's just my opinion.

"Why not just cut Congressional and Presidential pay?"

That is the question a lot of friends and even family members keep suggesting as the ongoing economic crises flow through the news. 


Ignoring for a moment that the combination of Congressional and Presidential pay is a tiny drop in the bucket of the Federal budget and the fact the budget killers are entitlement programs tied to demographic problems and increased human longevity, let's entertain the possibility...


One meme in Facebook lists the current pay of these elected offices as:

Salary of the US President. ..$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ...$180,000
Salary of House/Senate...$174,000
Salary of Speaker of the House.. .$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree... repost

The amounts seem reasonably correct, though probably don't include certain allowances required for the performance of duties.  Also, the inclusion of a serving soldier as a benchmark is a nice touch.


The idea of reducing governmental salaries of the President, former presidents, and the legislative branch, potentially to a level similar to that of a deployed US soldier, is assumed to be a good thing for the economic condition of the country.  I, however, disagree and not for partisan political reasons.


Let me explain why...


The primary purpose of elected politicians is to serve as representatives of those who elected them.  The ideal situation in a democratic form of government is one where the elected official would both act in the best interest of the electors and make the same decision the electors would make if provided the information and authority. 


One measure tied to this idea of elected official as proxy is the maintenance of a sense of connection between the official and those who elected them.  In the case of legislators, this often includes a requirement to maintain an office and/or residence in the district they were elected from.  This--functionally--requires the elected official to maintain two residences unless they happen to live within easy commuting distance of Washington, DC. This also requires transportation on a semi-regular basis between the home district/state and Washington in order to carry out their functions in both places.


A second measure towards maintaining connection is term length.  By putting the legislator in front of voters on a regular basis for election and reelection, the voters are able to make an overall assessment on the legislator's actions on their behalf.  Although arguably not a unique situation, this process--the election cycle--also adds to the fiscal and emotional costs for legislators.


Additionally, in order for voters to trust a candidate enough to vote for them in the first place, a candidate must have some sort of history--either as a legislator at a lower level or in some capacity of publicly documented political, legal, or economically relevant skill--to base an assessment upon.  This means getting elected to Congress (or the Presidency) is not an entry-level job and often requires a long vetting process to be a viable candidate.


However, these representatives are allowed a significant benefit in exchange for these costs; the power to create legislation and to exercise power over their fellow citizens in a somewhat unique scope of authority.


So, what's the problem with paying them less?


The first problem is one of motivation.  No one tries to get elected for the money; at least no politician in their right mind would suggest such a thing.  It's a reasonably high salary compared to many career professions and several times higher than that of the typical state-level legislator (or a US soldier).  The requirements to keep two residences and/or commute to Washington DC offsets some of the pay increase, however.


Motivation--in this case--is often tied to a rational assessment of the costs and benefits of the job where the motivation--ideally--is to both serve their electorate and to be recognized as a trustworthy executor of political and economic power.  The ideal motivation being a focus on service to the electorate or even the reputation (or legacy) derived from the positions.  


Cutting legislator pay essentially creates a conflict for legislators, especially those with families, by forcing their job requirements to be at odds with a stable family life and the measures suggested to remain connected with their electorate.  This creates a situation where the working conditions of the job selects for people who are more willing to sacrifice their own family stability (and potentially their constituent's) as a normal part of their decision-making process in order to continue to function in the position.


However, legislators with alternative sources of income may bypass this difficulty.  While this "relieves" the taxpayers of some of the burden to support legislators, the motivations and economic ties of well off politicians may cause other difficulties including the potential for these connections to directly influence votes against the will of the represented electorate.  In other words, these self-supporting legislators may also be more willing to support themselves and their close connections at the expense of their constituents.


One final problem is that of competition.  Given a choice, how many people would allow a medical doctor being paid $10 an hour to operate on them or a loved one?  


Most people probably would resist being treated by that surgeon because they are accustomed to getting what they pay for and a deal that looks too good to be true usually has some serious faults attached.  In this case, a question about the doctor's capabilities as most experienced, capable surgeons can command a much, much higher rate of pay.


Likewise, most politicians--like doctors--tend to be professional careerists.  They have a history in politics or a closely related field, they are respected, and they usually have other options.  Cutting the pay for elected offices simply make the jobs less competitive by increasing the personal costs and allowing other opportunities--like lobbying firms, political action committees, and non-elected executive positions--to draw off those with more talent and attachment to their families.


The people who remain and are willing to stand for office are those who have fewer options because they have been less successful, are more motivated by the unique power over others in politics--at the expense of family or money--or are different enough ideologically to ignore the expectations of others and therefore reduce the perceived stress within the position(s).


In all cases, it means those who stand for election would be less like us, more likely not to act in our best interest because of different values, and unlikely to make the same decisions we would make if provided the information and authority these politicians are provided.


Ultimately, it's not an ideal situation and no politician ever behaves in a way all of their voters approve of, but one guarantee in life is if you pay a cheap wage, you get cheap (or desperate) workers.  

Somali Pirates...

Totally honest?

The Somali pirate problem is a rate problem complicated by an unwillingness or lack of ability for ships to prevent their being taken.  One factor is the unwillingness for many international ports to tolerate the carriage of firearms aboard ships docked there.  Another is the skill and equipment requirements to successfully fight off attacks.  A third is the cost of committing a company's resources to such an effort when it's unnecessary in other locations.  If someone had the resources, they could probably solve the problem in a relatively simple way.

Basically, take 3 or 4 mother ships (and a spare) and station them in the shipping lanes outside the pirates' area of control.  The mother ships would essentially provide basic amenities and staging locations for a number of professional defense teams.  Ships transiting the pirate's area rendezvous with a mother ship, take aboard a defense team and gear, then transit the pirate zone.  On the other end, they simply rendezvous with another mother ship and deboard the team.

Within the piracy zone, the defense teams do a number of things.  They utilize high quality observational equipment and communication gear to track, identify, and report other traffic.  If another craft appears to be a threat, they report it to their mother ship and local naval assets in the area.    This way, if it's possible, the naval assets perform the primary defense.  Only if a boarding is imminent  do the defense teams engage the pirates with small arms or other means while providing recorded, secure transmissions of what occurs for use later in courts.

In this way, ships can use the service on a contractual basis, minimizing the company resources required for security in the area, as well as remain able to dock in any port.  Additionally, as long as the mother ships can be replenished and maintained in international waters, they can continue to provide long-term support.  Depending on the type of ship and the resources available, the mother ships could also act as floating support bases for aviation assets.

The combination would probably be cost effective if there was a significant reduction in captures (and ransoms) and the costs of the service was lower than the costs of capture.

For smaller, perhaps non-commercial shipping, perhaps a weapon or transmitter leasing service might also be worthwhile.

Just an idea...