Americans face real hardships in a darkening economy, while liberal politicians stage silly stunts that make the situation even worse. A perfect example is in Washington State , where the legislature is set to approve a “sales tax credit” that would send checks in the mail to low income families.  

Starting in October, 2009, couples earning less than $40,000 could fill out a complex series of forms and qualify for a $240 yearly check. This would theoretically reimburse them for some of sales tax they paid buying necessary items. The cost to the state, slated to rise to $165 million per year, would force tax increases or cuts elsewhere in an already strained budget, while $240—$20 a month—won’t make a huge difference for any family.  

At a time when the business climate suffers from too much taxes and regulation, Democrats plan meaningless giveaways teaching struggling households to game the government, rather than working toward a better economic environment for everyone.

The year is young, but it's possible we already glimpsed the scariest horror movie of 2008. In Saturday night's Democratic debate, Barack Obama alluded to his big tax plans--- including repealing the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" and eliminating the cap on Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes. This means that he'd abandon all pretense that Social Secuirty and Medicare are pension programs -- since the elimination of the cap (taxing all income, with no limit) would remove any connection between the level of contributions a citizen makes and the benefits he takes.

In pratcial terms, the impact would be huge. Today, the top marginal tax rate is 35%, and income above $102,000 a year isn't subject to the payroll tax. That means that the money you're lucky enough to earn above $102,000 gets taxed at a rate of 35 cents on the dollar, at most. Under Obamanomics, on the other hand, we would go back to the old Clinton era top marginal rate of 39.6%, PLUS making income above the cap fully subject to the payroll tax--- usually a combined 15%, but almost sure to go up. 

In other words, unless my calculation is mistaken (please tell me if you think it is), we'd be looking at paying Uncle Sam as much as 55 cents on the dollar for income earned above that $102,000.

If anyone still thinks this election doesn't matter, just consider....a normal, middle class family (with two incomes) will today earn $200,000 and still struggle to pay a mortgage, and college expenses, and so forth, in many Metropolitan areas. And yet, under a new Democratic President, that family could be looking at additional tax burdens that confiscate THE MAJORITY of their additional income.

Talk about punishing effort and penalizing success.... welcome to the brave new world of "change."

 

In the midst of their feverish fight for the presidency, politicians love to decry the “war on the middle class” and suggest that ordinary Americans face bitter hard-times. In this context, it’s ironic that the Democrats most recently debated in Las Vegas – which draws more than 39 million visitors a year, 87% of them American. Most of these Sin City thrill-seekers are solidly middle class; only 24% boast household income above $100,000. Yet they manage to spend an average per trip of $652 on gambling, $261 on food and drink, and $141 on shows. Meanwhile, even more Americans—45 million – visit Orlando and its theme parks in a year, and those mostly Disney-bound tourists boast an average household income of $73,000. Sure, the middle class feels pinched with the scary price of gas, medical care and college tuition, but considering our ongoing investment in pricey vacations or regular restaurant meals, some of the whining may be inappropriate.

Americans appear to be badly confused about the recent progress of the economy. A clear majority – some 60% according to the most recent Gallup Poll – believes “the nation’s economy is worse than five years ago” but barely half as many say their “personal financial situation” is worse. Obviously, people do a better job judging their own status than they do evaluating the of the current state of the nation – and the 67% who reported their situation as “better” or “no change” give a more accurate picture of what's going on. Since this time in 2002 – five years ago—unemployment has gone down sharply – from 5.8% to 4.5% -- while the Dow Jones average soared from below 9,000 to well above 13,000. Amazingly, among American adults who are employed full time, less than 3% fall below the poverty level. In other words, those who get and hold jobs – even menial, entry level jobs – need never be poor. Instead of accepting negative messages from mainstream media obsessed with alarming news, Americans ought to consider their own good fortune and face the future with optimism and gratitude.

  Why do Americans feel so much more satisfied than Europeans with their jobs and with their lives in general?

   That’s the most significant question raised by a provocative column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Professor Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University. He notes that the well-being reported by Americans at every economic level (even 87% of those who describe themselves as “working class” say they’re satisfied with their jobs) becomes particularly perplexing in light of the fact that we work much longer hours, with far fewer vacations, than our counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.

   Nevertheless, 56% of Americans say we’re “completely happy” or “very happy” with our lives, compared with 35% of the French (who average more than twice as many days of paid vacations) or 31% of the Germans.

   Professor Brooks points out that the correlation of long work hours and greater happiness applies to US citizens regardless of their income or education level: even those who toil at seemingly dull or menial jobs report that their level of contentment rises along with the hours they invest in work. But in his column, Brooks offers no explanation of why this hard-working model works particularly well for Americans.

   I would suggest that one way of coming to terms with these surprising observations involves the logical assumption that you feel most gratified with work when you believe that your labor is important, and the sense that our individual labor is important connects to the fact that America in general is undeniably important. A Belgian may feel great pride in his productive and charming little country, but he can’t believe that the fate of his nation counts as significant to the world at large. The fate of civilization doesn’t depend on what happens to Belgium, nor will the future of humanity change because of decisions made in Brussels, or the labor of ordinary Belgians.

  For Americans, on the other hand, we can relish the certainty that our work, whatever it happens to be, makes some contribution to the most significant nation on earth.

   The unique religiosity of our society also contributes to the realization for most Americans (nearly 90% express overall job satisfaction) that our toil counts for more than a paycheck. The public believes that God has directly touched and blessed this Land of Liberty, as so many of our patriotic songs declare (“God Bless America,” “America, America, God shed his grace on thee,” “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord” and so forth). Far more Americans attend church and synagogue than do residents of any Western European country, and we commonly perceive a divine role in our past, present and future.

   This sense of lasting significance for our national experience contributes to a sense of satisfaction in toiling away at our various jobs. It makes sense for members of the populace in this deeply religious country to understand that their work matters to the nation itself, and that this vastly powerful and fortunate nation matters a great deal in the overall scheme of things.

 

Occasionally, the formulaic Saturday radio addresses by the President and his designated Democratic “responders,” provide telling glimpses of our current political follies.

 

This past weekend, the Democrats chose Washington State’s junior Senator, the embarrassingly inept Maria Cantwell, to deliver their partisan preachment.

 

In the course of her dreary address about energy policy, she revealed her underlying contempt for her fellow citizens. “America deserves more fuel-efficient cars,” she announced with peerless eloquence, and then added: “But the only way consumers are going to get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress.”

 

In other words, hard-pressed Americans who note the high price of gas at the pump, can’t do anything for themselves to save money? We can’t purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles until the Republicans vote for new regulations forcing us to do so?

 

And auto designers and engineers and inventors can’t possibly create the “more fuel efficient cars” Senator Cantwell says we deserve, unless bureaucrats give the orders? The prospect of earning billions in profits by building such vehicles won’t be enough without a vote of Congress?

 

Senator Cantwell no doubt speaks for many of her fellow Democrats in her startling suggestion that the American people can’t be trusted—even on an important and very personal decision like buying a car – and instead need to count on politicians to make wise choices for them.

Time to update an important aspect of my website:

 

Among little known personal details about me, there’s a mention that my favorite beer is “Hale’s Pale Ale” – a tasty local brew here in Seattle.

 

While I’m still a fan of Hale’s Pale, my affections actually shifted some years ago and now, with a magnificent new discovery, I’m prepared to declare a revised favorite.

 

Fortunately, for a Northwest booster type like me, it’s also from a local operation: the Pyramid people, who run an elegant ale house across the street from Safeco Field, where the Mariners play (though they lost their second in a row in Chicago earlier today).

 

In any event, this ambrosial delight is called “Thunderhead IPA” – the best India Pale Ale, and one of the best beers at any price, of any type, I’ve ever tasted. Even if you don’t think you like beer, this concoction is world class.

 

The promotional legend on the spring-leaf-green label declares, “Way back when IPA’s were loaded with hops to stand up to oceans, elephants, finicky Colonists and spicy curries. Likewise our India Pale Ale is a powerful beer for bold tastes.”

 

Bold indeed: the amazing aspect of this brew is the layers of taste and sensual experience that provoke your mouth and throat when you imbibe. At first, the beer goes down smooth and silky, easy and light, but  then moments later the hops explode on you with jolting force: as fresh and edgy and stimulating as the morning’s first cup of joe, but also stunningly, joyously, lip-smackingly bitter.

 

In other words, this beer is one complicated party in a Pilsner glass.

 

Forget political disagreements or draining controversies. Instead, drain a bottle of Thunderhead IPA and then thank me for the recommendation.

 

By the way, the Pyramid company is not now, nor have they ever been, a sponsor of mine – or in any way connected with any of our radio stations. I wish I could advertise for them (because of the supreme craftsmanship of their product) but I don’t believe our syndication deals allow any promotion of adult beverages.

 

In that context, you might ask why a “traditional values” social and religious conservative would be trying to commend a new brew of beer. But actually, what could be more traditional than the juice of the hop or the grape? About two years ago, they discovered a sealed jar in Egypt which contained the world’s oldest beer --- lovingly prepared by some Nile-river brewmaster nearly 5,000 years ago. Far more primitive peoples than the ancient Egyptians also prepared beer of various kinds – for the fun, the fellowship, the exhilaration, the array of tastes.

 

In our Jewish religious tradition, alcohol (in moderation) is considered a great blessing, a gift from God, a means for gladdening the hearts of men (and some discerning women). Welcoming the Sabbath every Friday night, we say a special blessing on wine (grape juice can substitute, if absolutely necessary) and most families will bring out additional spirituous refreshment in the course of a festive meal.

 

When I attended Yale in the late ‘60’s, the entire student body was bitterly divided between alcohol people and marijuana people. In this context George W. Bush (one year ahead of me) was definitely an alcohol person and Howard Dean (and, later, Hillary Rodham in law school) was definitely a marijuana person. One of the reasons that I cast my lot with the drunks rather than the stoners was that alcohol had such an honorable tradition, whereas pot seemed synthetic, trendy, shallow, with no historical grounding. Shakespeare writes about booze very lovingly, of course (try “Merry Wives of Windsor,” or “Henry IV, Part I”) and nearly all the great American writers were, to a greater or lesser extent (usually greater) drinking men. I went through a stage in my life when I idolized William Faulkner, who fueled his eloquence with Bourbon and branch water, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, who happily drank anything he could find (and needed only two drinks to get himself roaringly, embarrassingly soused), and Sinclair Lewis (my fellow Yalie) who didn’t let his alcoholism slow his witty, biting, vivid literary production.. Dylan Thomas composed some of my favorite poems in a state of perpetual inebriation (he was Welsh, after all). Some of these

 

Raising a glass of beer, or a shot of Scotch, in other words allowed you to make common cause with some of the greatest artists and thinkers in all human history. Smoking a joint, on the other hand, aligned you with a bunch of fruity, dandified, hippy-dippy losers, who seldom produced anything of lasting value (Sergeant Pepper excepted).

 

I’ve admitted on the air that I like to relax with a great beer when I come home, but I never drink at work and strictly limit my intake. Some of my talk radio colleagues clearly fuel their tirades with the demon rum—and the slurred speech undermines their passion and conviction.

 

Sure, I feel some sympathy with the tea-totaler position: you save calories and, probably, brain cells, by avoiding liquor altogether. I respect and admire Mormons, Baptists and others who seem to enjoy life thoroughly without any alcoholic enhancement.

 

Nevertheless, there’s a Talmudic Jewish declaration that at the end of your life you’ll have to give an accounting of all the permitted pleasures that you somehow missed in life.

 

In my book, Pyramid Breweries Thunderhead IPA is an important permitted pleasure.

 

Cheers – and L’Chaim--- “To Life!” 

  On occasion, even sophisticated and thoughtful reporters can make embarrassing and demagogic mistakes.

  

  Consider David Leonhardt, acclaimed business columnist for the New York Times, writing in today’s Times Magazine about the changing perspective of former Treasury Secretary (and former Harvard President) Lawrence H. Summers. According to Leonhardt, Summers has become increasingly concerned about the gap between the rich and everyone else – and so he is featured in a special issue of the magazine that shows John (“Two Americas”) Edwards on its cover.

 

   As Leonardt writes: “Summers’ favorite statistic these days is that, since 1979, the share of pretax income going to the top 1 percent of American households has risen by 7 percentage points, to 16 percent. Over the same span, the share of income going to the bottom 80% has fallen by 7 percentage points. It’s as if every household in that bottom 80 percent is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the top 1%.”

 

  This analysis stands as so obviously flawed and spurious that it’s hard to see how it cleared the purportedly rigorous editors employed by the Times.

 

   The point made by Leonhardt (in the name of Sumemrs) assumes, of course, that year after year there’s no change in the amount of overall income in this country; that our economy, in other words, has remained perfectly static for nearly thirty years. The total income of the society has increased so spectacularly that even with the “bottom 80%” drawing a smaller percentage of that income, they’re still earning far more than they did in 1979. To put it in comprehensible dollar terms, if the total economy has grown from $100,000 to $300,000 since ’79, then even a somewhat smaller percentage of that economy for ordinary workers means that you’re getting more money in your pocket than ever before – not “writing checks”: to the super rich.

 

   As another economist, Steven Landsburg, explained in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, for the past half century “per capita real incomes, that is incomes adjusted for inflation… have been growing at about 2.3% (per year).” He goes on to explain: “If you’re earning a modest middle-class income of $50,000 a year and if you expect your children, 25 years from now, to occupy that same modest rung on the economic ladder, then with a 2.3% groth rate, they’ll be earning the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $89,000 a year. Their children, another 25 years down the line, will earn $158,000.”

 

   Landsburg adds that “rising income is only part of the story” – with Americans currently benefiting from lighter work weeks (believe it or not), more vacations, less time on housework and, above all, improved products for the money. “And as for the quality of the goods we buy,” he writes, “try picking up an electronics catalogue from, oh, say, 2001 and ask yourself whether there’s anything there you’d want to buy.”

 

   The focus on the spectacular progress of the super-rich obscures the less spectacular, but still significant, progress of everybody else. The concentration on the most privileged warps our perspective on reality and prevents middle class Americans from recognizing the depth and significance of our own blessings.

 

    The foolish notion of ordinary Americans “writing yearly checks” to plutocrats denies the obvious fact that the gains for the richest Americans come from producing more wealth – not taking the money from someone else in a static, zero sum game. Savvy observers like Lawrence Summers and David Leonhardt have acknowledged elsewhere that the only reliable way to insure increases in living standards – a larger slice of pie for every American – isn’t some complicated new way of carving up the pastry. The best means for satisfying every hunger is, rather, to bake a bigger pie.

  For me, one of the great advantages of observing the Sabbath and Jewish holidays is the sense of perspective—when you pull back for a day or so and stop digesting the up-to-the-minute media, and think about things that are important, rather than urgent.

 

  I enjoyed that experience over the past two days (Wednesday and Thursday) while observing the Jewish holiday of Shavuos (Pentecost) – spending time with my family and friends, eating festive meals, going to services, participating in all night Bible study, and going for a long walk (nearly thirty miles) during the last hours of the holiday on Thursday. As my listeners may have noticed, on Wednesday and Thursday we played pre-recorded hours—some of them brand new, and prepared for this occasion.

 

  In any event, this sort of removal from the ongoing hysteria and combat and emergencies of talk radio (which I do love, by the way) helped nourish my sense of well-being and optimism about our country, even with the problems and challenges and bitter controversies we face.

 

  I’ve also collected a few amazing, even shocking statistics that ought to give some pause to the doom-and-gloom/sky-is-falling crowd. Americans – nearly all of us – remain the luckiest people on earth, and there’s reason to celebrate what’s happened in our country over the last five or ten years, rather than complaining about it constantly and endlessly.

 

  Consider the following stunning items of data, all culled from reliable and authoritative sources:

 

n      Americans at every income level earned far more in 2005 (the last year for which data are available) than in 1991, but the group in the population with greatest surge in income (adjusted for inflation, and including government benefits) was the poorest group. Among the lowest 20% of the population in terms of household earnings, income growth was a stunning 78% (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget office) or the equivalent of more than 5% per year. Even the slowest growth of all income groups – the middle 20% of household income-- saw an inflation-adjusted income rise of 18%, for an increase in purchasing power of more than $8,500 per year. The claim that Americans are suffering, with fewer choices and less money than ever,  is disproven by the dramatic increases for every segment of the public.

 

-         Another indication of the nation’s rising wealth comes from the National Association of Homebuilders, which reports that the houses we occupy are much bigger than ever before – despite the decreasein family size. In 2005, the average new home amounted to 2,434 square feet – an increase of more than 20% (or 400 square feet) since 1990. In 1990, less than one in six US homes had four bedrooms or more; today, more than one-in-five of us live in houses that large.

 

-         Meanwhile, the New York Times Magazine offered a special report on aging Baby Boomers, describing a group of remarkably fortunate, contented, prosperous and educated Americans. For instance in 1967, only 8% of 50 year olds had completed four year college. Today, almost four times as many (31%) have completed college or university. In 1967, only 49% of 50 year olds had completed high school—but today (2007) the number is a dazzling 91%. Meanwhile, a startling 92% of Americans say their relationship with their partner is “emotionally satisfying” – one of the highest figures for any nation. Among the French (supposedly the experts on Amour) the number is a mere 81%.

 

-          I could go on, and will probably cover some additional indications of American progress and privilege on my radio show tomorrow (Friday).

 

But the point remains unassailable, I believe: if you gain a bit of perspective, looking past the viciousness and desperation in our current discourse, we remain the most fortunate nation and the most fortunate citizens in the whole, long history of humanity.

 

God bless America.

 A new CBS News/New York Times poll reveals profound confusion about governmental versus personal responsibility in protecting the environment. When asked about prospective federal laws “requiring car manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient,” an astonishing 92% of the public supported the idea! With this near-unanimous public backing, why should government get involved at all? If people really do want more fuel-efficient cars, they can choose to buy them—thereby forcing manufacturers to build more of them, without bureaucratic compulsion. No government policy prevents greater fuel efficiency --in fact, generous tax breaks already encourage consumers to buy hybrids. Polls indicating a preference for influencing auto makers through government mandate rather than the power of the market indicate that people don’t trust themselves- or their neighbors – to make the right purchasing decisions unless regulations force them to do so. When the people trust government more than they trust themselves individual liberty diminishes and, potentially, disappears.  

The New York Times, ABC News and many other mainstream media outlets have devoted a great of attention to a report from the National Association of Homebuilders revealing a new trend leading married people to sleep in separate bedrooms. According to their estimates, by 2015, 60% of all new homes will boast “his” and “her” sleeping quarters as part of the new “Owners’ Suites” that are replacing the old “Master Bedrooms.” Numerous experts and academics agree that more and more couples have decided to sleep apart even while they live together.

 

The reason, according to all the bemused stories, involves the increased stress on two career couples, who find it more and more difficult to coordinate sleeping schedules, or to fight insomnia and fatigue with a partner who snores or sweats or tosses and turns. Husband and wife may choose separate beds as a matter of convenience and comfort, without reflecting deeper tensions or problems within a marriage.

 

Oddly enough, all the discussion of more and more middle class Americans opting for separate bedrooms missed the most important basis for this story: the much grater wealth, the vastly enhanced options, even for ordinary citizens.

 

It’s nothing new for married people to prefer separate bedrooms: among Presidents of the United States, virtually all of them (with the recent exception of the two Bush couples) maintained private bedrooms with the First Lady either next door or, in most cases, down the hall. If you tour elegant homes and mansions of the nineteenth century, husband and wife often maintained their own quarters. They did so without embarrassment or any negative message about the state of the marriage because everyone has always understood that comfort can be enhanced if you sleep in a large bed by yourself. Rich people got the chance to live this way, but most Americans did not. In fact, one of the hallmarks of poverty involved cramming children (at times, even adult children) into the same bed or at least the same bedroom, simply because their wasn’t enough room in the house.

 

Today, American homes are larger than ever – on average, with more than 50% more living space than a typical house in 1970.

 

In other words, more couples sleep separately because they can afford to do so: that’s particularly true among empty nesters, obviously, who can easily adapt one of the children’s bedrooms to give husband and wife more privacy.

 

Of course, the undeniable fact that couples today enjoy  more wealth, more choices than previous generations, contradicts the stupid, malicious, groundless lie that says that standards of living have gone down in the US, that the middle class is worse off than in the past, that we’ve never had it so bad, and so forth.

 

An honest discussion of the new trend toward separate bedrooms should help people recognize the advantages and additional alternatives available today that our grandparents and even our parents could only exercise in their dreams.

Today’s papers featured photographs of joyous celebrationsin Ghana of thenation’s “Golden Jubilee,” commemorating the fiftieth anniversary ofindependence from Great Britainas the first African nation to throw off “the shackles of colonialism.”

 

With all the festivities in Accra,it may seem impertinent to ask what, exactly, they are all celebrating?

 

In his magisterial book, THE FATE OF AFRICA: FROM THE HOPESOF FREEDOM TO THE HEART OF DESPAIR, Martin Meredith makes clear that Ghana (inits former status as the colony known as Gold Coast) once represented thecontinent’s best hope to become a dynamic, prosperous, modern nation. At thetime of independence in 1957, the new nation boasted a slightly higher percapita GDP than war-ravaged South Korea(which suffered its own long-time colonization by the brutal Japanese). As theWorld Almanac Reports: “At independence, Ghanaboasted Africa’s largest man-made deep-water port andthe most productive gold mine in the world, and it was the second largestproducer of industrial diamonds.” Today, the Koreans enjoy a Gross DomesticProduct that’s reached an amazing $21,000; in Ghana,the figure is $2,300. The difference in development and growth relates to thenourishing nature of free market ideas, and the stultifying, dysfunctionalimpact of socialism and alignment with the Communist bloc. The prospect ofprogress for Ghanacame to an end with the autocratic, Marxist, cult-of-personality rule of thenation’s first president, the still revered Kwame Nkrumah.

 

The sad story of Africa in the lastfifty years shows that socialism has proven far more brutal, destructive andcruel than all the ravages of colonialism. Some day, a true change of heart anda new commitment to free markets and democratic institutions may give Ghanaand the rest of the continent something worth celebrating.

Naturally and appropriately, most of our attention on the misshapen national holiday the government fashioned out of the wreckage of Lincoln’s Birthday (February 12^th) and Washington’s Birthday (which actually falls on Thursday), focuses on the greatest of all chief executives. Inevitably, we think of the Rushmore Quartet (Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt) with a few other heroes (FDR, Jackson, Reagan) thrown in for good measure

 

The holiday also provides an opportunity, however, to consider the contenders for the title of most underrated President in our history. The most obvious name in that regard is James K. Polk, who kept his promise to serve only one term (and then died weeks after leaving the White House) but still managed to preside over the most successful and beneficial war in our history (which enabled California, Arizona and New Mexico to become part of the United States) and to keep all of the four major promises he made in his 1844 campaign. Polk so obviously deserves recognition as one of the greats that he’s been steadily rising in historical esteem: the handy-dandy Presidential rating polls now regularly list him as “near great.” There goes his claim to “under-rated” or “under-appreciated” status, obviously!

 

Another great (or at least near-great) chief executive still languishes, however, without nearly the recognition he deserves: Calvin Coolidge. When President Reagan moved into the White House in 1981, he took down Thomas Jefferson’s portrait (the third president after all had his very own memorial a few blocks away) and installed in its place a handsome painting of Silent Cal.  As Professor David Greenberg of Rutgers points out in a brisk, readable 2006 biography: “Coolidge, with his trickle-down economics and commonsense piety, inspired today’s conservatism. Employing the new arts of publicity, radio, and movies, he promoted the values of thrift and hard work that many feared were in eclipse. Embodying old-fashioned principles, he reassured Americans that their plunge into modernity didn’t have to lead to decadence.”

 

Meanwhile, in the other recent (and far more detailed) Coolidge biography (by Professor Robert Sobel of Hofstra University, published in ’98) you can see that the wildly popular chief cut taxes four different times (dropping the rates more sharply than anyone else save Reagan) while boasting a budget surplus every year in office and cutting the national debt by a full one-third! Long before anyone coined the phrase “Supply Side Economics,” Coolidge proved that it worked. And as Sobel reports: “Though his list of accomplishments is impressive, Calvin Coolidge was perhaps best known and most respected by his contemporaries for his character…. He was the last president who wrote his own speeches, who spent hours each day greeting White House visitors, who had only one secretary, and who didn’t even keep a telephone on his desk… His programs in the 1920’s presaged the recent movement toward smaller government and returned taxes… in a period of unprecedented economic growth.” 

 

He also delighted the nation with his elegant, artistic wife (surely the most glamorous First Lady next to Jackie Kennedy) his wry, celebrated wit, and his uplifting, freely expressed religious faith.

 

It’s therefore a shame that his one best known quote –“The chief business of America is business” – is regularly misunderstood and generally quoted out of context. In an illuminating letter to the Boston Globe, John Karol (who’s produced a magnificent, thrilling and altogether inspiring Coolidge documentary that is just a small foundation grant away from completion) clarifies Silent Cal’s celebrated platitude.

 

“This misquote comes from an address President Coolidge gave before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1925. Speaking on the topic “The Press Under a Free Government,” the President made the point that newspapers serve a dual purpose – providing crucial information for the electorate, at the same time they stimulate business growth through their advertising departments. He emphasized the idea that these two functions complemented rather than contradicting one another.

 

“After all,” he declared, “the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world.”

 

But the President went on to note that at the same time that we rightly concentrated on business and productivity, “The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction…I could not truly criticize the vast importance of the counting room, but my ultimate faith I would place in the idealism of the editorial room of the American newspaper.”

 

In other words, Coolidge neither said nor suggested that business success of economic progress represented the only appropriate concern for the nation. He specifically emphasized the need to balance the economic engine of society with the enduring ideals of the people.

 

No wonder that after assuming the Presidency upon Harding’s death in 1923, he won a crushing landslide victory in 1923—beating his Democratic opponent (the colorless John W. Davis) by nearly 2 to 1 in the popular vote  (15.7 million votes to 8.4 million votes) and nearly 3 to 1 in the electoral college (382 votes to 136 votes, with 13 electoral votes for Third Party candidate “Fighting Bob” LaFollette).

 

When, four years later, Coolidge announced “I do not choose to run,” he contributed his other famous quotation to the history books. Without doubt, the enormously popular President  (who left the White House at age 56) easily could have cruised to victory in 1928 (and perhaps thereafter), helping the nation avoid the ravages of the Great Depression, with the big government interventionism of booth Hoover and FDR that made a bad situation much worse.

 

Yes, it’s too bad that the marvelous Coolidge chose not to run in 1928. Actually, it’s even worse that we don’t have Silent Cal (or some other obvious contender in his courageous, common-sensical, morally rigorous, small government image) to lead a Republican revival in 2008.

On the radio show today (Wednesday), I welcomed the most extraordinary guest: a “Homeless Advocate” named Ray Kavick.

When you pronounce his name aloud, it sounds like “Wreak Havoc,” but since I’ve lived with the unlovely handle “Medved” for my whole life, I try to stay away from making fun of names.

In any event, Mr. Kavick, 22 years old, identifies himself as one of the organizers of “Camp Quixote, “an unauthorized squatter’s village of 23 tents in a city-owned parking lot in Olympia, Washington. He and his colleagues organized the camp in order to protest a city council decision to outlaw sleeping or sitting on the downtown sidewalks during business hours. They have announced their intention to defy orders from the city manager and the police to clear the area by the end of the week, and suggest that they will practice passive resistance in the face of any attempt to remove “Camp Quixote.”

In the course of our on-air conversation, Mr. Kavick revealed that he had worked as a landscaper up until three months ago, but now devotes his full-time efforts to his activism for the homeless. He considers himself “homeless” himself, even though he lives in a house with friends in Olympia when he’s not camping on city-owned property. Kavick and Co. want the city to give them permanent squatting rights either on the parking lot they’ve seized, or else on another suitable parcel of land. Considering the value of downtown property in Olympia (the Washington state capital) I asked whether it seemed fair to give homeless activists an expensive piece of land, when others might work and save and scrimp in order to purchase a similar parcel.

In response to this challenge, Mr. Kavick spoke about his homeless brethren and insisted that “they deserve some housing from the city.”

Deserve?

I bridled at the word, and asked him what the so-called homeless – more properly identified as transients, vagrants, drug addicts and the mentally ill – had done to deserve any sort of reward from public officials.

He couldn’t answer the question, of course, but fell back on his passionate insistence that the city somehow had an obligation to construct low cost housing, and to make that housing available to members of his group.

This little interchange (you can access it through michaelmedved.com) reveals the essential folly behind all socialist and liberal thinking.

Leftists believe that all human beings “deserve” generous treatment by government – which means that other people, who work hard for their homes, must pay for people who choose (like Ray Kavick) to stop working.

Consider the long- term impact of such policies. If you pay for something, you encourage people to do it, but if you charge for another course of action, you discourage that activity. This is human nature: if you get fined for littering, you’re less likely to litter, but if government pays a bonus to toss litter onto the stree, you’d be sorely tempted to deposit garbage everywhere.

By providing benefits to people who don’t work, we encourage idleness; by seizing taxes (at ever increasing rates, the more you earn) from people who do work we encourage our most productive citizens to “ease off.”

A core conservative principle suggests that it’s wrong to argue that people “deserve” housing or food or medical care or new cars or cell phones (nearly all the homeless have cell phones in Olympia) simply by virtue of breathing. Common sense dictates that good behavior deserves good results; bad behavior deserves bad results. To the extent that we abandon or undermine this simple formula, we move our society toward socialist madness.

Ray Kavick claimed (contrary to his group’s official position) that he didn’t want or expect government help, but he welcomed contributions from the general public. It makes no sense that hard-working wage-earners should hand over cash to homeless-by-choice radicals like Mr. Kavick. Compassionate people (including many religious conservatives) take on the burden of working with homeless populations in order to help them repair broken lives and begin working in order to establish their own homes (not encampments in parking lots behind bars).

Some day, Mr. Kavick may indeed “deserve” money and respect from his neighbors, but only when he cuts down on the sleep-till-noon “activism” and gets himself a job. And no, agitating against reasonable public ordinances (do we really want to allow bums and winos to sleep off their binges on sidewalks in waking hours?) doesn’t constitute useful work in any sense.

 

Like many other conservatives, I spent a few minutes on the radio today deriding Presidential candidate John Edwards over his insanely lavish new home—what a local North Carolina newspaper alliteratively anointed, his “Decadent Digs.”  The yet-to-be-completed mansion, sited on a 102 acre plot (from which the former Senator clear-cut a dense forest), features 29,000 square feet of floor space, including indoor basketball court, racquet ball court, and pool. Valued officially at six million dollars, it is by far the largest and most expensive residential property in the county.

 

Edwards apologists say that those of us who’ve been mocking “Uncle John’s Cabin” demonstrate the rankest hypocrisy.

 

Don’t conservatives celebrate the accumulation and indulgence of wealth? Edwards, who began life in humble circumstances, has lived “the American dream,” according to his admirers. Republicans regularly denounce class warfare and the politics of envy. Why encourage such attitudes now when it comes to a mill-worker’s son who made good, but tries in his politics to keep faith with his own disadvantaged past?

 

In response to these challenges, four points seem pertinent:

 

1)      Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, not as an industrialist or entrepreneur who built jobs and enriched the economy. Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators in the name of “suffering victims.” There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation. No, free market enthusiastics don’t confer equal respect on all accumulations of wealth: a rich pornographer like Larry Flynt, for instance, deserves less admiration than an innovator and job builder like Bill Gates or even a real estate tycoon like Donald Trump. The often idiotic lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy and fueled the destructive culture of victimhood, while building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?

2)      Edwards has built both his Presidential campaigns on the “Two Americas” theme – claiming that there’s profound danger in the emerging gap between a handful of super-rich, absurdly privileged people and the rest of the populace. It’s revealing that his choice of a domicile for his family places him so emphatically in the master class America of the “stinking” rich. I hope the media will press Senator Edwards (who four years ago reported his net worth as between $19 million and $69 million) on the nature of his mortgage on his six million dollar home. Does he hold a four million dollar mortgage? Does he write-off the interest on this huge amount as a tax deduction, and how much does that write-off cost the government? Does he think it’s fair to get a huge tax break because he chooses to live in a huge home? (I don’t, by the way – and one of the appealing aspects of a Fair Tax – that is, a simple consumption tax – is that it gets rid of special breaks for the more fortunate, like the home mortgage deduction).

3)      Has Edwards spoken to his pal Al Gore about his lavish, energy soaking plantation? Anyone calculated the “carbon footprint” of a 29,000 square foot home? Can you imagine how much natural gas or electricity or nuclear power (only kidding) it takes to heat that puppy? Consider the huge contribution to Global Warming (identified by Edwards and all other Democrats as a dire threat to civilization) by chopping down a hundred acres of forest and installing this monstrously excessive residence.

4)      As for Edwards exemplifying “The American Dream,” do we really want to identify that timeless vision with conspicuous consumption of the tackiest and most irresponsible sort? Aaron Spelling got criticized for his Edwards-like mansion because it seemed like such a selfish, narcissistic, tasteless display. Does Edwards really want to suggest that the ultimate goal for every striving American should be a house that’s ten times the size of a normal, spacious mansion (twenty times the size of the average family residence). Here in the Northwest, the Seattle community recently celebrated a retired history teacher at a public high school (Ballard High), who invested his money well, lived far below his means in a tiny house, and just donated more than a million dollars to benefit the history department as his Alma Mater, the University of Washington. I thought liberals cherished the idea that the ultimate goal in life should involve something more than materialistic display. Of course, for Edwards there is something more: the single-minded and ruthless pursuit of power.

 

The worst part of the story involves the total, absolute disconnect between the way Edwards talks and the way he lives. He says he identifies with “the little guy,” but he chooses to raise his family in vastly more lavish circumstances than the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, or even the Bushes (no, the family homes in Crawford and Kennebunkport don’t come close to the grandeur or sheer size of the Edwards palace.)

 

He’s proud of the fact that he got rich, but at the same time the candidate wants to make it vastly harder for other Americans to follow his example. The taxation and redistribution policies he advocates would fall most heavily on precisely those upper-middle class creators and producers and strivers who might dream of someday moving from a comfortable suburban home (2,000 square feet? 4,000?) into a baronial manor house in the Edwards style.

 

Yes, it amounts to shabby double talk for the luxury-loving-lawyer to suggest that once he’s made his pile and built his plaintiff’s-bar-palace, government should raise the drawbridge and block the way from anyone else coming across the moat and into the castle.